Talk:Sybil (cat)/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: Voorts (talk · contribs) 01:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Initial assessment

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):

   I copy edited the article and made some other style edits.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Moved some cites around to better fit the claims being substantiated.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Used Earwig's tool.

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.:

   I see there was a dispute about citing the Daily Mail, but that it is not cited in the current version of the article. Are you foregoing citing the publication at this point?

@Voorts - I think so at this point, yes. Unless you'd allow this article to cite the Daily Mail as an exception, I don't think that'll be happening. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I would fail the GA under 2.b. if the article cited the Daily Mail. If you still want to include a citation, we can keep this on hold and you can try to reach consensus on the talk page of the article; if you go that route, I'd recommend getting an opinion at RSN first. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts - In that case, I won't cite the Daily Mail at all. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Great. I have no other issues and I will pass the article shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up the review. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

1. 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):

   Fair use rationale looks good.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

2. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Final assessment

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 (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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.:

   Per above discussion.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 25 June 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.