Talk:Mistress Isabelle Brooks/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Lijil (talk · contribs) 14:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Working on this, not yet done. Lijil (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 9 October 2023 (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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   At least one of the references is incorrect - reference 2 ("What were the 'Drag Race' Season 15 Queens Like at Age 15?") goes to a short video about queering it up that not not support the claims. A lot of the references are not correctly formatted - you need to make sure the name of the person who wrote each of the article is included.

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):

   The images are great, but have CC-BY licences and I think that means that the caption should acknowledge the name of the photographer. Could you include that in the caption?

7. Overall:

I like the article - it's well-written and to the point. As somebody who is not an expert on RuPaul I didn't know what Werq the World was - perhaps adding a couple of words to explain would be useful, but of course I was able to just click the link to read the explanation so this is just a suggestion not a requirement. I think some reviewers might say there are too many references, but I 'd certainly rather have too many than too few, and I don't think it's against the guidelines - it's not in the main page that Good Articles are supposed to consider, although you could look at WP:OVERCITE. I'm happy to pass this article once the references are all correctly formatted with author names etc, the reference mentioned above is fixed and the image captions have photographer attribution.

1. Pass/Fail:

Thanks for reviewing! I am currently working to address your concerns. To start, this diff shows the addition of author details to all citations, as well as the merge of a duplicate reference. More to come...! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Here's added photo credits. I hope this is what you had in mind, but feel free to make appropriate adjustments, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lijil: I've removed the goth scene claim. Thanks! Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! This looks great, and the article now fulfils all the GA criteria. Thanks for supplying the diffs for specific issues, that made it much easier to review. Good work - congratulations!! Lijil (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.