Talk:Mary Harrison McKee/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 09:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 2.0% in similarity.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No problems were found in the lede.
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
  • In the sources I've seen Baby McKee, which is also used in the body. Change Baby Harrison to Baby McKee in the lede.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Add alt texts to the images.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW guidelines. There is no fiction and embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable, most of them are books.
    • Birthplace in the infobox is unsourced.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1 (several times), 2 (several times), 4, 6, 7, 14–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • Ref 8 fails verification.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • Article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• Checking images.
  • All looks good, images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@Thebiguglyalien: The article will be on hold for a week so that you can fix these minor issues that I've pointed out in the review. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Vacant0, I sourced the place of birth and added alt text. Reference 8 was redundant, so I removed it entirely. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good now. Article passes the GA criteria. Vacant0 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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.