Talk:Margaret McKenna/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Hello there! I'll give this one a look through for you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

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.	There are a few problems, such as " in a protests" rather than "in a protest". The use of language could be more concise, i.e. changing "directly after she graduated" to "directly after graduation" etc.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead does not summarize the rest of the article; this needs correcting before the article can attain GA status. Perhaps an infobox could be used as well ?
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.	Some sentences do not carry references. I'd have to recommend that the editor responsible for this page uses webcitation (as at Islam: The Untold Story) in order to preserve the sources; otherwise they might end up as dead links.
	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).	Again, some sentences are missing references.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Various chunks are apparently unreferenced, so might constitute original research.
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.	No images are used; are there any free or fair use images that coul, however be used ?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I await some changes before I'd be willing to award this GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Replies

• 1a I am getting a friend to do a copyedit later today --Guerillero | My Talk 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done --Guerillero | My Talk 01:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• 1b It has been expanded. I am wary of using infoboxes. You don't get alot of bang for the space used. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done --Guerillero | My Talk 01:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• 2 GA only needs sources for a list of reason. I will comb through the article to see if there are contentious facts or quotes that I missed. I disagree that every sentence needs a citation. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  •  Done --Guerillero | My Talk 01:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• 6 I have been searching for images but I can't find any that are libre. Since she is alive, an fair use image will get challenged and will likely be deleted under the NFCC. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Guerillo; I decided to go through and make the necessary prose changes myself, in order to save on time. I'm now happy to award this article GA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)