Talk:Eugenics in Minnesota/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Cedar Tree (talk · contribs) 04:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- Some close paraphrasing issues, see here. Citation 36, 43 and 44 are not reliable. Haven't checked all.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Seems to be a general overview, however it seems too focused on things very extraneous to the article topic. This article has some very weird inclusions that makes me question its focus. Why is there an entire section on trump and racehorse theory when this has no relation to Minnesota other than the fact he gave a speech there? The in america section's sources have no relation to Minnesota, while enough do to prove notability most of the sources here do not which is a major issue.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Looks good
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Looks good
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Issues need addressing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)