Talk:Sylvia Plath/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I will read this one over and post up a review soon. Sagecandor (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: A good article about an admirable poet and literary figure with a tragic ending. The writing quality is good. I did read over the talk page and saw some confusion mentioned about the death section, but I read the death section a couple of times and it reads quite clearly as to the chronology of events and the aftermath. The intro is good, for now, for good article, but I would recommend significantly expanding it more to be its own standalone summary of the article. For now, it's functioning well as an intro to the rest of the article, but the reader should be able to read the intro and come away with a summary of the article, without having to read the rest of the article.

2. Verifiable?: I went ahead as the good article reviewer and made an executive decision to remove one small bit that was tagged as unsourced, just the one sentence. Otherwise, now the article at present is good. Well cited, good reference structure. And I like the use of the multiple sections for the notes, the references, and the sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, the article is very very thorough indeed. Other than my one suggestion, above, about expanding the intro, the entire rest of the article goes into good depth and covers a good broad swath of topics and history within the individual's life.

4. Neutral point of view?: For future improvement with regards to NPOV I would recommend cutting down on the use of quotations with regards to the large style, try to work some of those into shorter quotes in the article text without having to jar the reader by going to the blockquotes. But for good article for now it is good.

5. Stable? I saw some recent vandalism but I didn't see much of ongoing edit wars. The talk page I read over, and looks like good back and forth collaboration.

6. Images?: I looked over all the image pages and they all have good licensing. No fair use images used. All free use licensed.

Good job on a good article. I feel a little bit sadder after having read it. But also better. It's kind of like a good sad. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)