Talk:Evita Griskenas/GA1

GA Review

Passed. joeyquism (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this in the coming days. Consider this a QPQ for your review of my first GAN Sergio Brown :) joeyquism (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried getting this done at the airport, but I got IP blocked on the WiFi lol.

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 really good! Granted, it's hard to get wishy-washy when you're stating the facts. There is only one comment I have here: Lead Not sure if the citation for the date of birth should be included here. Would likely be better in the early life section. The rest of my comments would be minutiae, so I'm not sure that it's even fair to write them out here. Well done!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No glaring MOS violations that I could find here.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are clearly listed, and are of reliable quality.
	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).	All sentences are supplemented by in-line citations, whether they are directly at the end of the sentence itself or at the end of adjacent sentences. While I would personally tag each individual sentence with a reference, there's nothing wrong with how you're doing it here. Spotcheck [2]: Good. [5]: Good. [11]: Good. [16]: Good. [23]: Good. [27]: Good. [35]: Good. [39]: Good. [42]: Good. [48]: Good. [55]: Good. [57]: Good. [60]: Good. [68]: Good. [71]: Good. [77]: Good. [82]: Good. [86]: Good, though I would restructure this citation to match the others [93]: Good. [95]: Good. [100]: Not sure if this supports the claim that she speaks Lithuanian, although it does mention that she's studying Spanish. Holding on spotcheck.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing resembling original research here. Everything stated is factual and backed up.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio check returns 10.7%, which is in itself acceptable. Only things flagged are sentences that could not have been phrased any differently, or the names of competitions.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is comprehensive in its coverage of Griskenas' life and career.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused and does not veer into extraneous subjects.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Prose is not overly laudatory or critical.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars here.
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.	Image was tagged as "own work", with a CC-BY-SA-4.0 attribution license. The image seems to have been cropped from an Instagram post, which I believe is acceptable under the same CC license; however, the own work designation was not acceptable. I've since changed this, so this should pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image is of Griskenas, the subject of the article. Relevancy is obvious.
	7. Overall assessment.	Going to put this on hold until citation [100] is resolved. This might be the least amount of writing I've done for a GAN review; you did a really great job with this article! @Riley1012: feel free to let me know if you have any questions, and I hope you're having a wonderful week so far! joeyquism (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: Thanks for your review! I have addressed all of your points :). -Riley1012 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work! Passing now :) joeyquism (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.