Talk:Susan Catania/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ezlev (talk · contribs) 05:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edge3! I'm planning to review this article. I have some experience writing GAs, but this will be my first time reviewing one, so I hope you'll bear with me as I figure it out – the article looks to be in good shape, so I'm confident the process won't be too difficult. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review template

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I'll update this template as changes are made to the article, and will explain the items that aren't marked with in a discussion section below. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ezlev! Thanks for picking up the review. Just a heads-up: I'm currently traveling on vacation until Saturday, so I will be delayed in responding to your feedback. I hope that's alright with you. Edge3 (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem at all, Edge3. Please don't feel any rush to respond. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezlev: Thanks so much for your patience! My response is posted below. Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Okay, let's break this down:

1b: This one is because of MOS:LEDE. The first paragraph of the lede is good, but it seems like the second one doesn't cover content in proportion to the way it's discussed in the article body – maybe the body got expanded and the lede was left behind? Believe me, I've been there. A bit of lede expansion would go a long way here.
2b: This one isn't you, it's me. I just need to spot-check sources.
6b: Can a caption be added to the infobox image?

I (apologetically) reserve the right to notice other things that want fixing, so don't get too excited – but this article is well on the way to GA status and I'm confident we can get it there together. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! Dege31 added a caption to the infobox image, and I've expanded the lead per your feedback. Let me know if you would like me to make more adjustments. Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great improvements! I've updated the review table accordingly. I'm going to take another detailed look right now, and maybe we can get this article passed! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having completed a quick surface-level review of all sources and a deeper spot-check on a few randomly selected ones, I'm satisfied with the sourcing, so this article is a GA as far as I'm concerned. Congratulations, Edge3! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I appreciate your help with this review. Edge3 (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]