Talk:Fanya Baron/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: Bart Terpstra (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

I am familiar with anarchism and was delighted to view the image was seemingly uploaded by a family member of the subject. This is my first GA, so i hope you will bear with me. I will ask a mentor to check my work. It does not seem to qualify for a quick fail.

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): check lead again once you've done research. check layout
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): never seen a more well laid out section.

b. (citations to reliable sources): literally chock-full of prestigious books and no glaring unreliable source. will return here to remove doubt once I've verified everything.

c. (OR): Only thing i can imagine is "false citation" where source doesn't say the simple fact.

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): seems unlikely and passes automated check.
It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): do a few more searches to make sure

b. (focused): it's all directly related to the subject.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Reply:

1b. What more can reasonably be added?
3a. I've already done the searches. I don't exaggerate when I say every source available to me is already in this article, either in the bibliography, further reading or external links. I even added a number of primary sources to flesh out the information, which I usually try to avoid doing. What more can be done other than incorporating more inline citations from the further reading and external links? I'm happy to do that but I don't think any more information can be gleaned from them.
4. I can have a look through the further reading (where this source is included) if that's necessary for achieving broadness and neutrality.
6b. Their facial features align with other photographs that exist of them. This image is also listed in a number of other off-wiki encyclopedia entries on Aron and Fanya Baron. Regardless, I've removed the image, as this article is short enough that it probably shouldn't be in there as a left-aligned image. (Per MOS:IMAGELOC)

Let me know if there's anything more I can do. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gone through all of the further reading and added inline citations for pretty much all of it (except the French language source, as the website died). I also segmented the bibliography in order to make it clear which sources are primary, secondary and tertiary. I've tried doing further research in Russian language sources but so far I haven't managed to find any extra information. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry for giving you the wrong impression, these were meant as notes to myself.

I have found nothing objectionable so far! Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full verification questions

Article says "heath 2009", but it was uploaded by a third party in 2009? How can I be confident heath wrote it? J-grid is a blog(?), which i think is fine as as a redundant source, but not authoritative by itself. is there a reason it is authoritative? Is a liberal arts degree sufficient (I don't know)? Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't uploaded by a third party, that's Heath's account, every one of his works on libcom is submitted through that account. If you're not certain of the reliability of Meyer 2007, it's not being cited here for anything unconfirmed by other sources, so I can easily remove citations to it if necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully believe you, but how could I verify it's heath's account? This does not seem to matter for good article review, I'm just genuinely curious. Bart Terpstra (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below the announcement of his new book seem to confirm it.[1] -- Grnrchst (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an acceptable GAN review to me. (responding to ping) (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.