Talk:The Thankful Poor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DocFreeman24 (talk · contribs) 03:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this! Given how short it is, I'll try to finish my review in one sitting tonight or else by the end of the weekend! DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Very nicely done. I enjoyed reading this and thought it was quite well written. I have a few comments below but once these are addressed, I'll pass this.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Regarding 1(a), The prose is exceptionally well-written. This is my first GAR that I haven't had any comments regarding the prose, very well done. Regarding 1(b), the lead is a bit short and I would recommend expanding it by at least a few sentences. The MOS suggests a few other items that could be included. I don't think you need all of them personally, but I would add reference to the fact that work is currently on display/stored at DuSable and perhaps that it is owned by the Cosby's. I'd also add a sentence or two for each of the analysis and history/reception sections, as I think that would be beneficial. For example, you could explain why the work is considered a "milestone" instead of just calling it one. Given how short the article is, I don't think you need more than a few more sentences. But right now, it feels awfully short.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I would suggest removing the picture of The Annunciation as it doesn't really seem relevant to me. Yes, it's mentioned in the article, but it doesn't really seem relevant enough to show it. The other works seem fine instead.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~On hold for now but should be passed after these are addressed.~~DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DocFreeman24: Thank you for the prompt and constructive review! I made changes according to concerns about the lead and images, and would like to see what you think of the current state of the article. GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralPoxter, Thank you! Very nicely done! I'll approve the GA now! DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]