Talk:That Still Small Voice/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 03:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Ruby 2010/2013
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 03:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
1: Well-written
- a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
- b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Check for WP:LEAD:
|
Done
Check for WP:LAYOUT: Done
|
Done
Check for WP:WTW: Done
Check for WP:MOSFICT: Done
|
None
|
2: Verifiable with no original research
- a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
- b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google. Cross-checked with other FAs)
Done
Check for WP:RS: Done Cross-checked with other FAs: Over There (Fringe), Pride & Prejudice (2005 film), Caroline of Ansbach, Sense and Sensibility (film)
|
Done
Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: Done
|
- c. No original research: Done
Done
|
3: Broad in its coverage
a. Major aspects:
|
---|
Done
Cross-checked with other FAs: Over There (Fringe), Pride & Prejudice (2005 film), Caroline of Ansbach, Sense and Sensibility (film)
|
b. Focused:
|
---|
Done
|
4: Neutral
Done
4. Fair representation without bias: Done
|
5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes
6: Images Done (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license)
Images:
|
---|
Done
6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Done
6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Done
|
As per the above checklist, the issues identified are:
The lead does not provide an accessible overview and does not give relative emphasis.The lead should be expanded.Fix "Cultural references" section.
This article is a very promising GA nominee. I’m glad to see your work here. I’m putting the article on hold. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 09:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing. I will get to addressing your comments within the next day or two. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 04:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- No worries and no rush. Take your time. I'm removing it from hold so that you are under no pressure. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I have addressed most of your concerns (except one: I just wasn't sure what else from the Reviews section I could incorporate into the lead -- its main points are already summarized well (IMO), and I believe that the Reviews section itself is long enough. It'd be great if you could expand upon your thoughts on this. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 02:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! You're right. I misjudged it. Apologies. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I have addressed most of your concerns (except one: I just wasn't sure what else from the Reviews section I could incorporate into the lead -- its main points are already summarized well (IMO), and I believe that the Reviews section itself is long enough. It'd be great if you could expand upon your thoughts on this. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 02:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- No worries and no rush. Take your time. I'm removing it from hold so that you are under no pressure. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 05:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Promoting the article to GA status. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 02:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)