 | Albertine Lapensée has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 22, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
 | A fact from Albertine Lapensée appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 May 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Albertine Lapensée/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bill McKenna (talk · contribs) 00:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
As 8 days have passed from my review without further comment, I have set this article to GA status. Congratulations to all contributors. Bill McKenna (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The article meets all GA criteria - Pass
This article meets Good Article standards as follows:
Criterion 1: The article is well written. It is clear and concise, and my review could find no grammar problems.
- It would be nice if the contents of the 'Later Life' section were less repetitive from the second paragraph of the introduction section. This recommendation would be a slight improvement, and the article still meets the criteria without addressing this point.
- Hmmm, I see what you mean. I'll see what I can do. Harrias talk 07:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Criterion 2: The article is verifiable. The sources document the subject well, and there are several reliable second sources.
- Is credit due to wikipedia.fr? I have read the article in the French language wikipedia, and there are similarities. Please recheck and verify that it is either not substantially sourced from .fr, or add the appropriate credit.Help:Interlanguage links
- I have not read the French language article, so any overlap is entirely coincidental. More likely it is because both are based on the same original sources. Harrias talk 07:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Criterion 3: The article is broad in its coverage. As stated above, the writing style is concise, with complete coverage of Albertine Lapensée. Of course, the fact that she dropped from sight in ~1918 is frustrating, but that has nothing to do with the article itself. In fact, the article gives good coverage of her 'disappearance'.
Criterion 4: The article is neutral, both by its tone and the article contents.
Criterion 5: The article is stable. It is a new article, but it is unlikely to have excessive edits, and I cannot imagine an edit war over it.
Criterion 6: The article has a fascinating picture of Albertine Lapensée. As per the .fr issue outlined in #2, the pic also appears in the French article. I rather think that it was taken from the Women in Red Sports event as an allowable Wikimedia item. There is nothing that indicates a fair usage problem though.