Jump to content

Talk:Maria Simon (sociologist)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 03:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Modussiccandi and thanks for nominating this article. I'll have the start of my review ready in the next 24 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to email me a copy of Berndt? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: thank you so much for picking up this nomination. I will endeavour to email you a PDF of Berndt and I'll start to address your comments later. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review tracker

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See notes below.
    Addressed.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    One issue mentioned below.
    Addressed.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig report contains only false positives. First two spot checks came up clear.
    One possible bit of WP:CLOP; though this may be a machine-translation-related error on my part.
    Addressed. I spot checked an additional five sources (above what I organically checked during review) and found no additional concerns.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold to permit work on the items below. @Modussiccandi:, I can keep this on hold for about a week. Let me know if I should clarify any of the concerns/questions or help in some other way. Good luck! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: I think I've addressed all your comments in the GA section. Please let me know if further work is required. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Modussiccandi: thanks! I'm going to take about a day and half (hopefully less) to give the article another full read through, confirm the addressing of the comments below, and spot-check a few more sources. If anything else turns up, I'll ping you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All GA criteria items addressed. This is a pass. @Modussiccandi: thank you for your excellent work. I hope you get a chance to work on the potential improvements mentioned in "Non-GA-criteria-related comments" below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FFFeedback

[edit]