Talk:Miss Calypso/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review:

• I made some grammatical and minor edits to tweak the article a little bit.
• The only thing that bothered me was the use of the word "gigged". I find it a bit informal. That certainly isn't enough to keep it out of GA contention but I thought I'd mention it.
• Overall I thought the writing was well done. The information covered the subject and it was balanced.
• Refs are formatted ok and links are good.
• I checked the image and a fair use tag is applied.
• I will pass this article to GA, thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 00:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the pass, thanks. I'm embarrassed to admit that the section containing "gigged" was added by another editor, and it got past me. My inclination is to cut it, but I'll do some looking around for the Variety source and see if it's valid, most likely tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)