Jump to content

Talk:Gina Krog/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Overall, well resourced with a good plotted out timeline

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: -- changed to Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article mentions both "Christiania" and "Kristiania", and both links direct to Oslo. Stick to just one spelling; you might want to add in parentheses if this is a neighborhood or suburb of Oslo.
    Nevermind. Having now read the lead section in Oslo, I now understand why these are appropriately different. Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: -- changed to Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    1 citation needed
    Thank you for the edit! Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    The "suffrage work" section does border on going into too much detail, but it does stay on topic, and to be honest I'm not quite sure what I would cut out. Would be worth trying to summarize a bit more and leave out a few less important details if you pursue featured article status
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: -- changed to Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    just some minor edits needed to pass. I'll place on hold for 7 days. Cheers. Tea with toast (話) 04:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the changes! Pass! Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]