Talk:Abby Martin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Pass. See comments below. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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 article is clear and concise. No spelling and grammar errors that I've noticed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article mostly complies with MoS, but I am concerned about the list incorporation. GA criteria says it needs to comply with list incorporation, but the section Abby Martin#Selected work may not comply with list incorporation. The "Selected work" section is a list, not a prose. However, MoS guidelines say: Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context. I than read further down the page to find Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines. It says that bulled list for works of a living person is usually formatted in the list, but the context of the list must be mentioned somewhere else in the article. After reading that, I decided 1b passed.
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.	Overall sources are reliable, but I do see one source to a YouTube channel description, about her show. The sentence that goes with the source says: and as a show that "cuts through the false Left/Right paradigm set by the establishment & reports the hard facts." although Wikipedia discourages YouTube as a source, I think for this sentence it's alright, since it's quoting something from the YouTube channel's description. However, I would recommend finding an official site to use as a reference instead of a YouTube channel.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can tell.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars recently, but a few reverts in the past 3 months, but nothing to due with edit wars.
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.	Free image, perfect!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No other images are in the article, so no captions are needed.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article overall passes the 6 good criteria for a Good article. CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)