Talk:Victoria Brown (water polo)/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 19:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)




  1. Well written:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Some word choice issues. 'As a youngster'... etc Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) No problems. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) No concerns. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) No problems. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No concerns. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Its on topic. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) As much as needed. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    Notes Result
    Aside from the second quote with 'the Italian's bite' it looks good. I'll remove that, its taken out of context and could be implied negatively. Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Notes Result
    No edit wars. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Nice pictures! Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) All good. Pass Pass


Result Notes
Pass Pass Aside from that minor issue, no concerns. I'll pass it.


I looked at this article weeks ago, but had refrained from posting it up. I wasn't originally going to edit the content, but I think one little edit is fine. Nothing is preventing it from passing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.