Talk:Richard Feynman/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 04:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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.	Astoundingly good shape, really.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues noted.
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.	Well cited
	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).	No issues identified.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None identified.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Via Earwig's tool, three possible matches were detected; all three were investigated and found to have triggered on longer quotations, properly cited in this article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, appropriate.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Adequately deals with controversies and criticism.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues noted.
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.	The initial portrait has a pretty convoluted rationale, but as I parse it it should be fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine.
	7. Overall assessment.	A rare "first pass" pass from me, I see no reason for this not to have already been recognized as a good article.

First read through

• "née" isn't a common way I've seen a mother's maiden name referenced in other biographical articles.

Wow, other than that, the text is in really good shape. The fact that this was a former FA is pretty obvious. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)