Talk:Betsy Blackwell/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HueSatLum (talk · contribs) 01:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Too short; needs a major expansion

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Needs relevant images, especially one of Blackwell herself.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this. It is a short article that is not ready for GA status. This might be one of those topics that just isn't notable enough to have significant information about them to write a GA-worthy article. A two-paragraph, 300-word article isn't long enough to provide comprehensive information about her life. Regards, HueSatLum 01:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)