Talk:Lilly Daché

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 04:01, 10 July 2021 (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.	What does "to blocking a crown for draping a turban" mean? Otherwise, the prose is excellent.  Done Explained and wiki-linked.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Decent lead section, layout is solid. I took the liberty of converting the books to use {{Cite book}}, using {{Google book}}.
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.	Uses {{sfn}} effectively, reflist is good and uses appropriate citation templates.
	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).	Please note: I am assuming good faith for all sources I cannot check (i.e. are not online), but I am noting that I cannot verify the material Early life and immigration: I added the editors of two books (sorry, I originally got confused!), but everything checks out that I can check online Career: unable to check Lambert 1976 or Joselit 2002, as no preview in Google Books unable to review Saturday Review of Literature reference as not online Doug Coldwell can you clarify what page you are referencing in Life for "Daché's yearly production of custom headgear was estimated as high as 10,000 hats a year." - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Other than above, all references checkout Personal life: they all check out. The imdb reference, I consider to be reliable on this occasion.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No WP:OR.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	File:Lily Dache checking out her hat design.jpg - tagged correctly, valid fair use rationale File:Lilly Dache on E 56th St.jpg - public domain image
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:Lily Dache checking out her hat design.jpg - appropriate, it shows her showing off her hat, historical image, not able to be provided by non-free use image File:Lilly Dache on E 56th St.jpg - very appropriate as it shows Dache at her residence on E 56th St, New York City, with her hats
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues resolved, article has passed GA. Well done, another fine article! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Thanks for review. I get started on the issues as soon as possible. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Item 2b above ->  Done Adjusted to 9,000 hats per year = with Scribner Encyclopedia reference.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Aussie Article Writer: All items have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)