Talk:Thung Sin Nio/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 17:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi @SusunW:, I'm happy to take on this review. Sorry it has languished in the queue for so ridiculously long. Hopefully we can move through this process quickly and you can free this part of your brain to work on something else. Looking forward to the read! Ajpolino (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- •Medical practice and activism > "To reduce the argument that women did not actually desire the right to vote..." - "Reduce the argument" sounds odd to my ear. Could you rephrase it somehow to clarify? (unless you think it's a regional English thing that I've just missed, in which case carry on).
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- There are certainly limitations to my ability to check the sources, but for whatever it's worth, it passes Earwig's test.
- 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):
- 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:
- It's a shame that there aren't other usable photos. Have you tried reaching out to Atria to ask about using some of their photos? I've had good luck getting university libraries to share material (though they often charge me a fee for their time). Doesn't hurt to ask. Perhaps if we ever learn Dutch we could make a more compelling case as well... Ajpolino (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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:
- I was all prepared to settle-in with my red pen, but this article is excellent and was a pleasure to read. It passes GA review with flying colors. If you could address the clarification request I made above, I'd be much obliged, but it's no reason to hold up the review. Thanks for the read. I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail: