Talk:Susanna Hoffs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Theepicosity (talk · contribs) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it well written?

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

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

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   a. (reference section):

   b. (inline citations to reliable sources):

   The inclusion of quotations is super nice, it really enhances the credibility and the general reading experience!

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   e. (source spot-check):

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. (major aspects):

   There is lots of extra details, but they are not necessarily out of scope. The lead gives a good overview of what is included in the scope.

   b. (focused):

   The article is on the larger side, but once again, this is not bad.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass, fail or on hold: