Talk:Teresa Lewis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Laurent (talk) 13:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Good references and well presented with templates

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   In the Murders section, it should be mentioned 1) how the murders happened 2) How did the police found out who was responsible. "Public reaction and aftermath" should be expanded as it's not clear why this case was so important. Perhaps we need more details on why some people think that sentences for women in murder cases should be different. Perhaps some quotes from some supporters will do it?

    Done. The Murders and Public reaction and aftermath sections have been substantially expanded, with source quotes where applicable, to address the above comments. The lead has also been expanded to summarize the longer article. Let us know if there are other suggestions to improve the article. KimChee (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for the help KimChee, I think the improvements made has been exactly what was needed for it to reach GA. Lets see what WikiLaurent has to say.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall this is a well written article but I think there are a few important parts missing. I will pass it as soon as the sections above will have been expanded. 27/11/2010: Thanks a lot for the improvements, it's much better now, so I've passed the article. Congratulation! Laurent (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)