Talk:Mary Paxton Keeley
Mary Paxton Keeley has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 13, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Paxton Keeley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Sammielh (talk · contribs) 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reppop (talk · contribs) 01:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I will be doing this review. This article has been on my radar for a while now as I was using it for an informal practice of GA reviewing, so I though it would be time to do an actual review. I plan to do some of it today and the rest throughout the week. Forgive me for any hiccups. reppoptalk 01:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Will be taking a break from this to rest, will get back to this tomorrow. reppoptalk 05:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Reppop: Thanks for picking this up. Sorry for the delay, I've been so busy! I've added some comments below, need to come back on two of the prose points when I have a chance to look back through the sources. Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I said in 6a, welcome back. I've asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright about the images and if they can have another license. reppoptalk 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, comments below. Sammielh (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I said in 6a, welcome back. I've asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright about the images and if they can have another license. reppoptalk 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Reppop: Thanks for picking this up. Sorry for the delay, I've been so busy! I've added some comments below, need to come back on two of the prose points when I have a chance to look back through the sources. Sammielh (talk) 20:36, 10 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. | Overall, prose is clear and concise, with only some things that I found to be off:
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Don't see any issues with MoS; lead and body sections look good, don't see any words to watch (that isn't a quote), fiction and list incorporation not in article. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | References are listed by order of appearance, sources are listed by order of surnames, both with appropriate information given. | |
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). | I'll check some of the references and some of the sources separately.
Overall, I think most are good, I would just need a check on [88] to see if there's actually something that points to her letters and D.C. I've done some minor copy editing stuff on there as well. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Don't see any major problems with original research. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig copyvio check turns up with no copyright violations. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Article addresses main topics as dictated by the headers (and somewhat by the lead as well). | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Maintains summary style throughout the article. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is largely neutral, although there are some things I noticed:
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Hasn't been edited since May 10, mostly been edited by nominator. | |
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. | Some of the images' licenses are a little dubious, as they have a {{PD-because}} "SHSMO says there are no known copyright restrictions" but some have varying copyright descriptions, including in copyright with the rights-holder unlocatable and copyright undetermined. Specifically these ones:
I would suggest finding out if they're published and changing the licenses to other specific licenses. I can definitely help with this if you need.
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | All images seem to be relevant to both the topic and their sections. | |
7. Overall assessment. | I am going to place this on hold for a bit so that you can return and see the comments and address them. Otherwise, the article is very good.
Edit (June 12, 2024): As the issues are (mostly) now fixed, I will pass this article. |
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- GA-Class Women writers articles
- Mid-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- GA-Class Missouri articles
- Unknown-importance Missouri articles