Talk:Kimberly Anyadike/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Beginning the GA review for Kimberly Anyadike. Codyorb (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (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):

   Prose is clear and well written, with appropriately sized paragraphs.a There are no obvious spelling or grammar errors. No apparent violations of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Reliable citations are used throughout the article. No plagiarism or original content found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article is comprehensive. It does not leave out any major details and does not go into unnecessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found in the article

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

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):

   All images are appropriately used and licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Codyorb (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Review reopened

Per a discussion at Codyorb's talk page, this review is being reopened, and further work will include contributions from Mike Christie, who has agreed to give a second opinion on the state of the article, given that Codyorb is new at reviewing, and some issues came to light. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-review by Mike Christie

The lead is too short; it should be a summary of the article. Currently it omits some significant information.

Other than that I think the article is ready for promotion to GA. A note for future reference: Earwig found this, but it appears that article was taken from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to expand the lead with information from the body of the article. Codyorb (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead section to 2 paragraphs. Codyorb (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Codyorb. I've modified it a bit; the most important facts about her relate to the flight, so I cut some of the biographical material you added and put in a bit more about the flight. This looks good enough now, so I am promoting the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)