Talk:Suzanne Ferrière

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suzanne Ferrière/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (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.	Made prose tweaks myself - if you have any disagreements with any changes I made, just let me know. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	Source review reveals no major issues. Using Google translate and AGF for primarily non-English language sources. I do have questions about the genealogical websites, though - archives-ferriere.nexgate.ch and Geneanet. I'm not convinced these sources are reliable. Can you make a case for their reliability?
	2c. it contains no original research.	Removed a few questionable phrases/sentences during prose review - as it stands, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing in Earwig or manual spot check. Some quoting but nothing egregious. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage is pretty good but not perfect. Good enough to pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not overly detailed. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	After prose tweaks, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Several images are missing dates. For those images which have known dates, please add them in. Parentheticals like (from the collections of the ICRC archives) can be removed. The link to men-only society describes a fictional concept. I'm not sure what a better link would be - misogyny? In any case, I'm not convinced the image of the ICRC founders is needed - it might be better explained in prose why they were all male.
	7. Overall assessment.

@RomanDeckert: I've completed my initial review. Please take a look and make the few changes that need to be made - we're quite close to a GA! Thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@RomanDeckert: are you active and available to make changes? Noticed you haven't edited since the 3rd. Let me know - thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@RomanDeckert: please confirm whether you're available to respond to comments. Otherwise, I will have to close the review after 24 hours. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Ganesha811, many thanks indeed for your comments and please accept my apologies for not responding early, as I was juggling quite a bit. However, I shall have time early this coming week to follow up on your recommendations and make changes. Actually I am super-motivated since I have never been so close to a GA, so please do not close the review! Have a great weekend, RomanDeckert (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@RomanDeckert: any time to make progress? Otherwise I will have to close the review in 48 hours. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@RomanDeckert: closing the review as a fail, without prejudice. I think it's quite close to GA status, though, and you should definitely renominate the article, with improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ganesha811 I attempted to fix your concerns except the 2 sources you mentioned. 2001:4455:364:A800:EDB1:FE3F:328B:2870 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - I'm not sure whether you are RomanDeckert or another person, but I appreciate the improvements. The review has been closed, though, so further comments should go on the article's talk page. As I mentioned, I would encourage that the article be re-nominated when the issues have been fully addressed. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)