Talk:Lise with a Parasol/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GnocchiFan (talk · contribs) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An excellent article, very in-depth and reliably sourced. Can see no issues with it whatsoever, looks good to go! –GnocchiFan (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned here, another user has noted issues with duplicate refs and possible references needed in footnotes, but says it doesn't need to be re-assessed. Apologies if this review was not sufficiently thorough; this is my first time reviewing articles for GA on Wikipedia. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Can you point out the dupe refs so I can fix them? My eyes aren't as good as yours. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither can I, if truth be told. I've asked FunkMunk on his talk page. Thanks for your patience GnocchiFan (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No hurry on this. I will also take a look later after I get back from work. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

FunkMunk didn't mention "duplicate refs" but WP:duplinks, better known as MOS:REPEATLINK. The ones I noticed are several paragraphs apart, so that's permissible under that guideline's "and at the first occurrence in a section". As for unreferenced footnotes: I see two, La Esméralda and the parents of George Bibescu; these seem trivial and non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries, no worries. Just fixed both.[1] The info about Bibescu I had in there was wrong. Most embarrassing, I named his stepmother as his birth mother. Now corrected. Thank you everyone. Please help identify additional issues if possible. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)