Talk:Trenyce/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 11:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Picking it up! Would be making straight forward changes as I go, so please feel free to revert any of my edits!

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• The birth date could be specified in the "Early life and education" section too, apart from the lead (at the start of the section). Subsequently, the citation could be moved from the lead too.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• "the first former American..." the word "former" seems extraneous.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• "She has an older and a younger sister." Could you find the names of the sisters and their occupations?

• Unfortunately, I cannot find any more information about her family than what is already present in the article. Trenyce herself, while notable by Wikipedia's standards, does not receive enough in-depth coverage concerning her personal and family life so I cannot find any notable sources discussing this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Atlanta" should be linked.

• Linked. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• "The judges chose her to become one of the 32 semi-finalists." Could it be reworded to "She became one of the 32 semi-finalists"?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Jim Cantiello" should be linked.

• Linked. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Entertainment Weekly" should be linked too.

• It is already linked on its first mention in the first paragraph of the "2002–03: American Idol" section. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Woops! I missed it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Robin Givhan" as well should be linked. Reworded that sentence, so that the two links do not be continuous.

• Linked. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Link "San Francisco".

• Linked. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson's" would be better if you wrote the full name "Michael Jackson's" and link it.

• His full name and link were already provided earlier in the paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think I was sleeping while reading it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Overall a very strong article! Just some persnickety here. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Pinging, as I think the article might have slipped down your watchlist unnoticed. :P Although, if you have already noticed the review, you could take your time! Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Adityavagarwal: Thank you for the review. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to look through this for me. I honestly anticipated that I had to wait a lot longer for someone to pick this up for review. While I would not identify myself as a fan of this particular artist, Trenyce always stood out to me in the early days of American Idol, and there is a little nostalgia there for me. It was cool to work on an article about a relatively overlooked subject. I look forward to hearing any further feedback from you on this. Have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• It is a very well-written article! Certainly a pass. Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Aoba47: Would you like to review the Ethiopian highland hare? Although due to any reason if you would not, it is completely cool (no issues whatsoever)! Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your message. Unfortunately, I will not have the time to conduct a full review of the article. I am going to take a hiatus from reviewing and content creation and expansion for the time being; good luck with the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ah, no issues! Thank you very much. I hope you have a great day. :D Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

---

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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.