Talk:Madusa/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    •  
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    •  
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    •  
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    •  
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    •  

No problems encountered when checking against the quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):  
    • Lead: two successive sentences start with She later...;
    • 'Early career: six sentences start with She..., consider using her family name or varying the sentence structure to improve readability. This fault is common throughout the article.
    • Personal life: She also worked at Arby's ... I know that you have wikilinked Arby's but it would be better to explain e.g. She worked at an Arby's restaurant. I don't think that chain is quite as famous as MacDonalds. ...she released a CD of her singing in Japanese. Clumsy, suggest something like ...she released a CD of songs sung in Japanese.
    • Suggest a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)  YReply
    b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Thanks for the review. I have copyedited the article, specifically focusing on sentence structure. Is it sufficient? Nikki311 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply