Talk:1883 Korean special mission to the United States/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Godtres (talk · contribs) 10:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Ticks all these boxes convincingly. Godtres (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Follows the rules on the lead. Godtres (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Obeys the layout guidelines. Godtres (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Obeys words to watch. Godtres (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Not on fiction. Godtres (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   The style guideline is strongly for prose over embedded lists, but I think the list of members of the mission is ok. Godtres (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

2. 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:

   There is a list of references in accordance with the style guidelines. Godtres (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   B. 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):

   Spot check of sources 1: I've looked at the four instances of citation 75. The second and third use of this citation are spot on. The first and fourth usages have incorrect page numbers (should be p.109 and p.111 respectively), although the source does verify the claims. Godtres (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Spot check of sources 2: I've looked at the two instances of citation 5. This supports both claims (with correct page references). Godtres (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   All claims have citations. Godtres (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations or plagiarism, or at least none detected by Earwig. Godtres (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   It addresses the main aspects of the topic, and there are sufficient headings to help navigate the page. Godtres (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It is in a summary style. Godtres (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Viewpoints are represented without editorial bias etc. Godtres (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars or content disputes. Godtres (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All the images have appropriate rationales for their inclusion. Godtres (talk) 10:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Has relevant images with captions. Godtres (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This passes with flying colours. Well done! Godtres (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   P.S. There are enough juicy facts in here that you could definitely apply for WP:DYK. Godtres (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

   Thank you very much for the review 🙂 All the best! toobigtokale (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)