Talk:Barbara Mandrell/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) 19:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I made a couple minor touchups here and there. As usual, watch for overlinking and repetition. I've noticed that your writing style has improved overall since I first started reviewing your GAs.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I would encourage adding alt text to images for the benefit of visually impaired editors and readers.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: