Talk:Therese Forster/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a very interesting article and could be one to add to the Women in Green initiative. I will start my review soon. simongraham (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience. I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All inline citations seem to be from reliable published sources. Data seems to come from a wide range of literature.
	2c. it contains no original research.	It does not seem to contain original research and all statements are backed up by sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig confirms that it it contains a very low chance of copyright violations. There is no identified plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers the main aspects of Forster's life and work.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused on the topic. There are numerous redlinks where there are relevant articles in other wikipedias which go into detail about other people that are significant to Forster.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view, particularly on potentially controversial subject like the relationship between the subject and her parents. Perspectives are backed up with verified sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no evidence of an edit war or content dispute. Authorship is heavily slanted to a single contributor.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images have either CC or PD status with appropriate tags.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and interesting. They are varied and have appropriate captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

The article is currently rated B class.
Authorship is stable and 98.1% by Kusma.
There is 1,890 words of readable prose, plus an infobox.
All images except in the infobox contain no ALT tags. Although not a GA criteria, adding them will enhance accessibility.

@Kusma: Great work. Please ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham, thank you for the review! I have checked the publication history of the images and added US PD tags on Commons. I have also added ALT texts here. Glad you like the article, I really need to bring the one about her mother to GA status at some point. —Kusma (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Congratulations. This meets the requirements of a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]