Talk:Willa Cather/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: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 03:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable, 64.5% of authorship is one user, Urve. It is currently ranked a B class article.

• The article is well researched and written in a readable style.
• It is illustrated with relevant images that are marked as in the public domain,
• The wikilink to University of Nebraska redirects to University of Nebraska–Lincoln, but the school is called both in the text. I suggest choosing one.
• Link Pittsburgh, New York City and Edith Lewis in the body at the first mention.
• The term Great Plains is in the lead but not in the body. I suggest adding it to the first mention in the discussion on the Prairie Trilogy.
• Inline citations are numerous and link to credible sources. The sentence "The French influence is found in many other Cather works, including Death Comes for the Archbishop (1927) and her final, unfinished novel set in Avignon, Hard Punishments." has no inline citation. Can you please add the correct one.
• Sense of place is mentioned in the lead but not the body. The lead should be a summary of the article and so it would be good to be consistent.
• The JAILLANT, LISE citation is in all caps, as are the authors BOUTRY, KATHERINE, HOMESTEAD, MELISSA J., BOHLKE, L. BRENT and STOUT, JANIS P. These should be title case.

@Urve: I think that is everything. Please ping me when you would like me to look again. simongraham (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Simongraham: Thank you very, very much for your kind review. These are all helpful and actionable requests. I believe I have fixed these issues! Urve (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

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

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

   it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Congratulations, Urve. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

   Pass/Fail: -- simongraham (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2021 (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.