Talk:Kaycee Nicole/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Tom Morris (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Scare quotes can be overused, but mostly that has been fixed. For articles on topics like these, it might be an idea to avoid them altogether. For instance, I edited out '"her" hospitalization'. There is no doubt that the persona is female; the problem is that it is a persona. Otherwise, the prose is fine, and by the time I reached the beginning of the section on the unraveling of the hoax, I was actually quite eager to find out what happened!
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No OR concerns. A few of the references are to user-generated content sites like Kuro5hin and Metafilter but it would be hard to discuss the story without linking to those. They are backed up by links to more traditional sources that back up the assertions.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
No problems. The subject is clearly defined, it's not like it is "List of famous things from the twentieth century" so staying focussed is not a difficult.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Hard to think of how it could not follow NPOV. Again, it's not a controversial topic (although the syndrome itself may be).
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit warring or other disruption listed in the revision history.
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):
Obviously very difficult to get images for this kind of article. As there are no articles available,
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Everything checks out okay to me.