Talk:Gina Krog/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Overall, well resourced with a good plotted out timeline
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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)
- 1 citation needed
- Thank you for the edit! Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- 1 citation needed
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- 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
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
-- changed to Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thanks for the changes! Pass! Tea with toast (話) 23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- Pass or Fail:
