Talk:Victoria Law/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: TheDragonFire (talk · contribs) 07:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- The article needs copyediting once prose issues are resolved.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- The lead needs expansion, and the proliferation of occupations will need to be cut.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- I have completed some of the needed cleanup, but we can deal with the remaining issues after the sources have been overhauled.
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Most citations used by this article are primary sources, and will need to be replaced.
- C. It contains no original research:
- The citation to
Email from Victoria Law
is heavy original research.
- The citation to
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- The article is written in a somewhat fan-page style, with undue weight about her parenting and her cat, and editorialisation such as "
as an A student
".
- The article is written in a somewhat fan-page style, with undue weight about her parenting and her cat, and editorialisation such as "
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I am placing this article on hold pending improvements. I'm happy to expand my explanation of any of the above issues upon request, but there should be enough to get you started. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Status query
[edit]TheDragonFire, A21sauce, where does this nomination stand? It's been over a month since it was put on hold by TheDragonFire, which was acknowledged on their talk page by A21sauce, yet no edits have been made to the article. Thanks for taking a look at this. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)