Talk:Myrtle Bachelder/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I look forward to reviewing another fascinating article by you, Hawkeye7. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. As you might have noticed I use a template when starting my reviews so you will find this on the pages I'm reviewing. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-structured, well-written, and comprehensive
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Addressed
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Another excellent piece. Satisfies all criteria for promotion, except for one minor point:--LT910001 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Could you expand this citation and provide a publisher, ISBN or URL? I'm not sure what source type it is. "R.D. Bachiler, Bachiler-Bachelder genealogy, 2003."
  • It's a genealogical work. I don't have a copy, so I re-sourced the information from elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, am promoting to GA. Well done again, --LT910001 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)