Talk:Suzanne Ferrière

Suzanne Ferrière was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 9, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Dance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance articles

WikiProject Dance To-do list:

To nominate at WP:FAC:
To improve to Featured standard:
To nominate as a Good article:
To expand: 18th century dance - 20th century ballet - Bolero - Choreography on Broadway - Dance education - English ballet - Indian classical dance - Italian ballet - List of dance companies - Meg Stuart - Opera ballet - Sasha Waltz - Scotch reel - Set dance - Physically integrated dance
To cleanup: Contra dance - Salsa (dance) - Dandiya - Lead and follow
To unbias:
To check for copyvios:
To merge: List of dancers and List of dance personalities‎ as per AfD discussion
Substubs needing expansion: see /substubs
To destub: Amir Hossain Babu - Canada Dance Festival - Dance etiquette - Flash dance - more
Needing references: Chorus line - specifically verifying that each girl actually started out as a chorine
To create: Broadway dance - Country Western Dance International - Dance and cinema - Dance and society - German folk dancing - Latin swing - Post-structuralist ballet - Push (dance) - Salon dance - Shuffle dance - Swing boogie - World Dance Alliance - Xavier Le Roy - more
Wanted Pics/Graphics: Category:Dance articles needing images

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: Women in Europe (2021)

This article was created or improved during the Women in Europe contest hosted by the Women in Red project from April to June 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suzanne Ferrière/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. I hope to complete the review over the next week. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Made prose tweaks myself - if you have any disagreements with any changes I made, just let me know. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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 reveals no major issues. Using Google translate and AGF for primarily non-English language sources. I do have questions about the genealogical websites, though - archives-ferriere.nexgate.ch and Geneanet. I'm not convinced these sources are reliable. Can you make a case for their reliability?
	2c. it contains no original research.	Removed a few questionable phrases/sentences during prose review - as it stands, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing in Earwig or manual spot check. Some quoting but nothing egregious. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Coverage is pretty good but not perfect. Good enough to pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not overly detailed. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	After prose tweaks, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Several images are missing dates. For those images which have known dates, please add them in. Parentheticals like (from the collections of the ICRC archives) can be removed. The link to men-only society describes a fictional concept. I'm not sure what a better link would be - misogyny? In any case, I'm not convinced the image of the ICRC founders is needed - it might be better explained in prose why they were all male.
	7. Overall assessment.

@RomanDeckert: I've completed my initial review. Please take a look and make the few changes that need to be made - we're quite close to a GA! Thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RomanDeckert: are you active and available to make changes? Noticed you haven't edited since the 3rd. Let me know - thank you. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RomanDeckert: please confirm whether you're available to respond to comments. Otherwise, I will have to close the review after 24 hours. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ganesha811, many thanks indeed for your comments and please accept my apologies for not responding early, as I was juggling quite a bit. However, I shall have time early this coming week to follow up on your recommendations and make changes. Actually I am super-motivated since I have never been so close to a GA, so please do not close the review! Have a great weekend, RomanDeckert (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RomanDeckert: any time to make progress? Otherwise I will have to close the review in 48 hours. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RomanDeckert: closing the review as a fail, without prejudice. I think it's quite close to GA status, though, and you should definitely renominate the article, with improvements! Ganesha811 (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811 I attempted to fix your concerns except the 2 sources you mentioned. 2001:4455:364:A800:EDB1:FE3F:328B:2870 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I'm not sure whether you are RomanDeckert or another person, but I appreciate the improvements. The review has been closed, though, so further comments should go on the article's talk page. As I mentioned, I would encourage that the article be re-nominated when the issues have been fully addressed. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]