Talk:Rita Miljo/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. simongraham (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

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: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 10:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks a very interesting article, and a good one to review as part of the Women in Green editathon around Women in the Environment (or could it be Green Women in Green). I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love that Green Women in Green. I actually ran across her file looking for something else. It had a bunch of tags on it and that seemed weird for someone for which there were so many available RS. Look forward to working with you on improving it. Thanks for picking up the review. SusunW (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That sounds an interesting journey. The article looks excellent so far, so I look forward to reviewing. simongraham (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

This seems a well-written article. 91.7% of authorship is by SusunW. It is currently assessed as a B class. Spot checks confirm that the sources do support the article.

Review[edit]

Consider post-war rather than postwar. Otherwise, I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar issues.

Done SusunW (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is of reasonable length (247 words) and complies with the relevant MOS.
The reference section complies with the style guide and all citations seem to be from reputable sources. I checked IPPL News and this seems to be reasonably respectable.
There is no obvious original research and all statements that could be queried have inline citations.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector states "Violation Unlikely". The most likely candidate is the IPPL article, which shares necessary terms. There is no evidence of plagarism.
The article is reasonable size (2,223 words) and comprehensive in coverage.
The article covers controversial topics without bias (such as her involvement with Hitler Youth).
It is stable without evidence of edit wars.
The portrait has "fair use".
Other images have appropriate licensing and CC tags.

Assessment[edit]

The six good article criteria:

It is reasonable well written.
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources;

it contains no original research;

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
It is broad in its coverage
it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
It has a neutral point of view.
it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
It is stable.
it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

@SusunW: This looks excellent. simongraham (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2022 (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.