Talk:Beatrice Hicks/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Accedie (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Just a few minor issues (commas can be a real devil) that I fixed. Other than that, good, clean, and clear!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I would add just a sentence or two about Hicks' accomplishments in engineering and her championing of women in science, as those are both covered in the body of the article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes, all good.
	2b. 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).	AGF on off-line sources; spot-check of the online source looks good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All clear!
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Solid coverage for a GA. Would love to see this expanded if more sources exist :)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use, all good.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Concise, well-written, well-sourced. As mentioned above, I'd love to see it expanded if more information is available, and taken to FA if the nominator is interested in that kind of thing :) Good work!