Jump to content

Talk:Jennie Anderson Froiseth/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


All of my suggestions are open to discussion. Once completed, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    These are my edits. Please review for accuracy.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    no concern
  2. 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:
    no concern
    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:
    The article claims Utah gave women the right to vote on "February 12, 1870," but the cited source says 1896. Am I overlooking something?
    Her birthdate isn't cited.
    C. It contains no original research:
    no concern
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    no concern. AGF for the non-print sources
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I am not overly familiar with the subject, but nothing obvious has been omitted.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Is the single-sentence paragraph about the Edmunds–Tucker Act needed for this article? Was Froiseth directly connected to it somehow?
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    no concern
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concern
  6. 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:
    no concern
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    no concern.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This looks pretty thorough, but there are a couple issues that need to be addressed prior to passing. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argento Surfer, thank you for reviewing this article! Following up with the issues you addressed.

  • I've checked the date for suffrage and it was February 10, 1869. Thank you for catching this.
  • A source for her birth and death date has been added.
  • I do feel the Edmund-Tucker sentence is useful because it follows up on the conclusion of what Anderson was working towards.

Any other issues just let me know.Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied. Happy to promote this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]