Talk:The Hate U Give/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
Reviewer: L235 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- Starting this review now. I'll try to have my initial comments ready by the end of the day. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Excellent work. I've left suggestions for improvements to the prose below, but this passes the GA standard without those changes.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- This was on the edge – I was somewhat concerned by what looked like close paraphrasing from sources. I still encourage you to reword sentences that seem structurally similar to the sources, but the article sufficiently complies with policy.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- This article passes the GA criteria. Congratulations, and good work! It's clear you've put a lot of work into it – you should be proud of what you've created. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
Suggestions
[edit]- "Starr's identity as the witness is initially kept secret from just about everyone outside Starr's family, even her younger brother Sekani. This means that Starr's two best friends, Hailey Grant and Maya Yang, and Starr's white boyfriend, Chris, who all attend Williamson Prep together, are unaware of Starr's connection to the news story." -> "Starr's identity as the witness is initially kept secret from just about everyone outside Starr's family, even her younger brother Sekani – leaving Starr's two best friends, Hailey Grant and Maya Yang, and Starr's white boyfriend, Chris, who all attend Williamson Prep together, all unaware of Starr's connection to the news story." (I personally think the "This means that" makes for bad prose, but this won't prevent GA status.)
- Definitely an improvement. Changed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- "took the charge" – what does this mean? Maverick admitted to the crime? I'm not familiar with the expression, but that might just be a me thing.
- It is an expression and is (I am pretty sure) used in the book but I have changed the wording to make it more clear to a general audience. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah it's kind of like saying "took the fall for" though not exactly--anyway yes agree it might be best to change for general audience. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
- In the reception section, consider removing "At the same time"
- Innisfree987 and I have been playing with that wording. I've deleted it for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Kevin for your review and the pass. I have incorporated the suggestions you made and glad you liked the article. As I think I noted to your privately Innisfree987 created and did much of the work in this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Great team effort! I definitely wouldn't have brought it up to GA any time soon on my own--not least because I hadn't ventured into GA before! Thank you both Barkeep49 and L235 for this excellent introduction! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
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.