Talk:Mary van Kleeck/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 23:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is very well written; I found nothing to complain about at the copyediting level (WP:GACR 1a). The lead appropriately summarizes the body of the article rather than incorporating new material. The only potential word to watch is "rapturous", but it is immediately and adequately sourced. There is no fiction or list incorporation (GACR 1b).
Most or all references appear to be in Citation Style 1, as generated by the {{cite}} series of templates. However, there are some minor formatting inconsistencies in formatting, notably in the Richardson-Fisher and Alchon references, due to nonstandard use of template parameters (authors or editors should be listed in author or editor parameters, not "others", and without birth years). (GACR 2a.)
The article is thoroughly sourced, the sources all appear reliable, and spot-checking the sources found no inaccuracies or problematic sourcing. Quotations are clearly marked and sourced. (GACR 2b.) All claims appear to be properly sourced (GACR 2c.) Neither Earwig nor my spot-checks found any copied wording nor even problematic close paraphrasing; the Earwig scores are unusually high (several in the 30% range) but this is only because of long proper names of organizations and properly marked quotes. (GACR 2d.)
The article appears to cover all the significant events in the subject's life, and is balanced in its coverage rather than going into excessive detail about unimportant material (GACR 3a and 3b). There is some editorialization (e.g. "rapturous" again) but always properly attributed to the holder of the opinion; everything written in Wikipedia's voice is properly neutral (GACR 4).
Some significant article improvements have continued since the GA nomination, but it has not been left in a problematic state and there appears to be no major edit-warring. No significant disagreements are evident on the article talk page. So despite the ongoing change I think this is stable enough (GACR 5).
The article has five images, three of the subject and two illustrating the context for her education and work. All are relevant and suitably captioned. All are from commons. The two Harris & Ewing portraits, and the ordnance workers, are clearly and appropriately licensed. I am more skeptical about the image of Smith College, as it has no provenance that would ensure the accuracy of its claimed public domain status, but it's likely to be ok and there are several images in Commons:Category:College Hall (Smith College) that could replace it if necessary. The final portrait is probably ok but its metadata on commons has an incorrect date "0018"; is this intended to be 1918? (GACR 6a, 6b).

Overall, this is in very good shape. There are only minor formatting issues under 2a and minor image metadata issues under 6a. I don't think this is enough to block Good Article status or delay its approval, and I have good faith that the article editors will see this review and address these issues in any case. So I will mark this as an immediate pass, rather than requiring the more usual second round of review. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, thank you for your thorough review! I appreciate the pass and I'll fix those minor issues soon! Ganesha811 (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]