Talk:Lola Baldwin/GA1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Another Believer in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article for WP:GA status.
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 02:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Nicely-done, really well-written.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- 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:
Problems with refs.All fixed now.- Dead ref...http://www.nationalcrittenton.org/who-we-are/history/
- Archived. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect (please correct to most recent URL) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-first-police-woman-20100901,0,734746.story?page=1&track=rss
- Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect (please correct to most recent URL) http://www.learningtogive.org/papers/paper216.html
- Done. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- The review is on hold until the refs are corrected.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- There is a possible problem with the article's image, please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 5#File:Lola Baldwin Portland Police Bureau.jpg.
- Unfortunately, I don't know image policies very well and I don't know if the image is Wikipedia-appropriate or not. Someone uploaded the image recently, and added it to the article (perhaps this happens often?), which I didn't question. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest you join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 5#File:Lola Baldwin Portland Police Bureau.jpg and ask for assistance from some of those participants. User:Jo-Jo Eumerus is an admin & User:Sfan00 IMG is a very experienced editor - they would be great resources for you to understand images-use policy & policy getting permission. It is possible that you could contact the Oregon Historical Society (which apparently holds the original photo in its archives) to see if they would release the photo for a Creative Commons/CC-by-SA type of license. I'll post some helps on your user talk page.
- Unfortunately, I don't know image policies very well and I don't know if the image is Wikipedia-appropriate or not. Someone uploaded the image recently, and added it to the article (perhaps this happens often?), which I didn't question. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is a possible problem with the article's image, please see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 December 5#File:Lola Baldwin Portland Police Bureau.jpg.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- The one image of Lola Baldwin was removed from the article because of licensing/rights issues.
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Review is on hold until
1)the ref issues are corrected.2)image issue is settled.- Thanks for your review thus far. I've addressed #1. I don't know what to do about #2 except remove the image, if you'd like. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to remove the image as of yet. Let's see if the File discussion leads anywhere.
- I've gone ahead and removed the image for now, per request on my talk page. With this concern set aside, please let me know if there are any other remaining issues. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to remove the image as of yet. Let's see if the File discussion leads anywhere.
- Thanks for your review thus far. I've addressed #1. I don't know what to do about #2 except remove the image, if you'd like. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
- Review is on hold until
- Pass or Fail:
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.