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.


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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 23:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    Encouragements: Clip newspapers.com citations to make them available to non-subscribers. Run a date script to render all dates in mdy and IABot to archive reference links. Add author information for articles with listed authors (the Leader-Post piece, for instance). Make author listings consistent in last, first format (some are not).
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig catches attributed quotes and song titles.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    The photo of Hank Williams in the body is PD (no notice). The fair use photo of the band members has a valid NFUR.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:
    Copy tweaks are the main thing, but there are also a fair number of side suggestions in the reference department. Clipping the newspapers.com citations should be a priority. 7-day hold; ping when ready. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 23:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Copy changes[edit]

Spot checks[edit]

I also checked the Regina Leader-Post reference (22) incidentally, and it worked out.

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.