Talk:Jane Withers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 12:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

   *"Wojcik opines that this introduced the narrative of queerness through alternative family structures"

   Who is Wojcik, and why are they quoted here? No Wikipedia article on this person, and If this mention is left, reader needs some clue who this is.

   *"Withers was allowed to go on chaperoned dates with groups of same-age boys in her early teens"

   Needs tweaking - this sounds like it was just Withers and an entire group boys on a singular date. The source says "with half a dozen or so boys of her age" - I think that meant her available dates to chose from, not being with all of them at once.

   *"imprint her handprints"

   Sort of repetitive. Maybe "place her handprints"

    Done Fixes made. I thought it was Wikipedia style to just use the last name of an author, but I added in her name and the book title. Yoninah (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

2. Is it neutral?

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

3. 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:

   Per This talk page conversation, the sourcing style and references are in accordance with guidelines.

   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:

4. 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):

   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:

   Nominator has been the primary editor for most of 2020

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:

   Well done. Extremely interesting article. — Maile (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Maile: Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)