Talk:Harry Glicken/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Review

I've looked over the article and have added an outline here to help with the review. Not going to add an specific comments right now, but will re-read the article and give my impression a bit later this weekend.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a) The article reads well and the content summarizes the references adequately b) A word selection nitpick: in the "Personality" section it says "...and for paying awesome attention to details." The word "awesome" jumps out at me. This might not be the best word choice in terms of encyclopedic tone. The sources says "he was extremely engaged in detail". If we can word this a bit more neutral, maybe something like a variation of "detail oriented", the article will be good to go. Pass

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a) The references are uniform in style and the one note explains the discrepancy in total deaths fine b) The article contains solid references c) No original research found Pass

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   Adequate coverage of life, studies, work, and death b) Length OK Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   The text is neutral Pass

5. It is stable.

   The article is stable (1.16 edits per month for nine years) Pass

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a) USGS / Creative Commons b) Captions are appropriate Pass

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

• Response - I replaced it with "paid meticulous attention to detail". ceranthor 00:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, Dawnseeker2000 00:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)