Talk:Madusa/GA1

GA Review

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems encountered when checking against the quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Lead: two successive sentences start with She later...;
   • 'Early career: six sentences start with She..., consider using her family name or varying the sentence structure to improve readability. This fault is common throughout the article.
   • Personal life: She also worked at Arby's ... I know that you have wikilinked Arby's but it would be better to explain e.g. She worked at an Arby's restaurant. I don't think that chain is quite as famous as MacDonalds. ...she released a CD of her singing in Japanese. Clumsy, suggest something like ...she released a CD of songs sung in Japanese.
   • Suggest a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Y

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • I fixed one deadlink using CheckLinks. References check out. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • OK, the prose as noted above needs copy-editing. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Y
   • Wow! Much improved. I am happy to confirm that this article deserves Ga status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have copyedited the article, specifically focusing on sentence structure. Is it sufficient? Nikki♥311 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)