Jump to content

Talk:Lilly Daché

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleLilly Daché was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 29, 2021Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lilly Daché/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 04:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. What does "to blocking a crown for draping a turban" mean? Otherwise, the prose is excellent.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Decent lead section, layout is solid. I took the liberty of converting the books to use {{Cite book}}, using {{Google book}}.
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. Uses {{sfn}} effectively, reflist is good and uses appropriate citation templates.
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). Please note: I am assuming good faith for all sources I cannot check (i.e. are not online), but I am noting that I cannot verify the material
  • Early life and immigration: I added the editors of two books (sorry, I originally got confused!), but everything checks out that I can check online
  • Career:
    • unable to check Lambert 1976 or Joselit 2002, as no preview in Google Books
    • unable to review Saturday Review of Literature reference as not online
    • Doug Coldwell can you clarify what page you are referencing in Life for "Daché's yearly production of custom headgear was estimated as high as 10,000 hats a year." - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than above, all references checkout
  • Personal life: they all check out. The imdb reference, I consider to be reliable on this occasion.
2c. it contains no original research. No WP:OR.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. All issues resolved, article has passed GA. Well done, another fine article! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]