Talk:Isaac Franklin/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 06:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I will be reviewing this article as part of Good review circle 3. I'll be using the table below. Comments to follow soon! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Generalissima, thank you for your work on this article - an interesting subject, well-written and well-sourced. I've left some comments below. Feel free to push back wherever you think necessary! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 14:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
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. |
Lead
Early life and family
Early career
Franklin & Armfield
Planting
Personal life and death Legacy
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Lead sections Layout Words to watch
Fiction
List incorporation
| |
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. |
| |
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). |
Source review
Spot check
Rothman 2022
Stephenson 1938
Tadman 2007
Christian 1976
Bancroft 1931
Gudmestad 2003
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
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. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
- @Unexpectedlydian: Okay, I think I've resolved everything! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima Great work, very happy to pass this now! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)