Talk:Myrtle Bachelder/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I look forward to reviewing another fascinating article by you, Hawkeye7. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. As you might have noticed I use a template when starting my reviews so you will find this on the pages I'm reviewing. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

  • Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
  • If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
  • Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Well-structured, well-written, and comprehensive
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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. Addressed
2b. 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.
2c. it contains no original research.
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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Commentary[edit]

Another excellent piece. Satisfies all criteria for promotion, except for one minor point:--LT910001 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Could you expand this citation and provide a publisher, ISBN or URL? I'm not sure what source type it is. "R.D. Bachiler, Bachiler-Bachelder genealogy, 2003."
    • It's a genealogical work. I don't have a copy, so I re-sourced the information from elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, am promoting to GA. Well done again, --LT910001 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)