Talk:William Perry French Morris

Latest comment: 2 months ago by IntentionallyDense in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:William Perry French Morris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 00:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 05:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


I will be reviewing this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi IntentionallyDense, I have updated the article per your feedback. Let me know what you think. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose looks good, I have no complaints here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). I checked about half the sources and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2c. it contains no original research. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. see comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  7. Overall assessment. I'm going to put this on hold pending some minor tweaks. Overall this article is really good. Great work! IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (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.