iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Margaret_Booth/GA1
Talk:Margaret Booth/GA1 - Wikipedia

Talk:Margaret Booth/GA1

Latest comment: 1 month ago by IntentionallyDense in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: PrinceArchelaus (talk · contribs) 20:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 03:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


I will review this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The prose looks good here I have no complaints. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I'm unable to access some of the sources due to IA being down but I'll verify what I can. I checked the online sources and downloaded the books used through other means. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2c. it contains no original research. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall assessment. Because of IA being down I'm going to put this on hold until I can check some of the sources more. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't able to do as thorough of a source check due to the archive being down but based on my other spot checks things look good. The prose is good, the article is neutral, and the detail level is appropriate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.