Talk:Sienna Shaw/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 09:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• It is possible that there is copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported 49.5% in similarity. Will analyse this in depth later in the review. False positive.
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • No problems were found in the lede.
  • No problems were found in the rest of the article.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • I've replaced curly quotes with straight ones.
  • Add a short description.
  • Add alt text to the infobox image.
  • In the infobox, change the break tags (<br/>) to an unbulleted list using the {{unbulleted list|first item|second item}} template.
  • The article complies with the rest of MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • Fixed one referencing issue.
  • Listed references are reliable, they are mostly news websites.
    • "Student" and her mother's name in the infobox is unsourced.
    • Ref 26 has author link to Steve Barton who died in 2001. I doubt that it's the same person, so that link should be removed.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • Ref 14 cites blisters but not cuts and bruises.
  • Checking potential copyright violations.
    • False positive. The reason why it was picked up is the quotes in the article. I conclude that there is no copyright violations, and the quotes are properly used in the article.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topics.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
• Checking images.
  • All looks good, images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@The Baudelaire Fortune: The article will be on hold for a week so that you can fix these issues that I've pointed out in the review. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed so I'll promote the article to GA status. Vacant0 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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.