Talk:Sarah Yorke Jackson/GA1
Latest comment: 1 year ago by MyCatIsAChonk in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm extremely impressed by your progress in the WikiCup and in the First Ladies GT, and I'm happy to contribute! Look forward to reviewing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien: The article is already very high quality, just some minor tweaks needed. Fantastic job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- MyCatIsAChonk I've added the use templates and I also fixed the clarification needed tag that was added after your review. Technically citation formatting is an FA requirement, but it doesn't matter because I found it was redundant to a better source in each instance, so I removed it altogether. The image is a bit trickier. The best I could find for a source was this, but I'm not sure if that webpage is sufficient to say that our version is the one by Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl in 1833. There's also this, if this webpage is sufficient to establish that it's public domain. Ideally, I'd like to have both paintings. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien, I think I figured it out- the whitehousehistory.org source is good, I was further confused by "c. 1921" but it was completed then and painted much earlier. I went ahead and fixed the file page and the caption in the article. Thanks for clarifying the Ref 6 thing- this article is good to go. Great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- MyCatIsAChonk I've added the use templates and I also fixed the clarification needed tag that was added after your review. Technically citation formatting is an FA requirement, but it doesn't matter because I found it was redundant to a better source in each instance, so I removed it altogether. The image is a bit trickier. The best I could find for a source was this, but I'm not sure if that webpage is sufficient to say that our version is the one by Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl in 1833. There's also this, if this webpage is sufficient to establish that it's public domain. Ideally, I'd like to have both paintings. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2023 (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. | Prose is well-written and free of typos. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Complies with MoS standards. | |
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. | Refs are properly formatted. | |
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). | Citations are frequent and sources used are well-balanced. Most sources are reliable books, and web sources are reliable. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Article contains frequent citations that back the information provided- no OR. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no copyvios/plagiarism. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Despite being rather short, I believe it does cover Jackson's life well, and explains the lack of info. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No visible bias. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring. | |
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. | {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} should be rightImage is properly tagged with copyright status | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Official portrait in infobox is relevant and properly captioned. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
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.