Talk:Diamond Tooth Lil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be starting this review shortly. I have made a couple minor clarifications to the article's wording but nothing substantial.

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):

   Exceeds the minimum criteria of simply being clear and concise. Explains a potentially-confusing situation where multiple women used the same alias around the same time with a minimum of fuss. No issues with spelling and grammar. Lead neatly summarizes the article while being interesting enough that the reader wants to explore further. Layout is clear - one section for an overview, then one for each notable Diamond Lil including the fictional one. No issues with words to watch.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Can't access sources 6, 8 & 9 due to paywalls, but the citation details match and they are reliable publications (New York Times and Washington Post) so I have no concerns. Quotes are cited, no paraphrasing problems.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers all the important known facts about the notable women who used the name, but does not go into excess detail on any portion.

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Looks like a pass to me, and nice work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)