Talk:Intimate relationship/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Of the universe (talk · contribs) 23:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed reading the article. I will begin the in depth review soon. Of the universe (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A.mollusk, The article is mostly good! The one issue I've found, which seems to recur throughout the article, is that the cited sources are very often specifically about romance, when the scope of the article is specifically broader than romance. When the cited source is about romance, that needs to be clear in the text. Of the universe (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:
The article was fun to read! The grammar and spelling are good.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Looks good!
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. 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):

C. It contains no original research:
Everything is well supported by a reliable source. My one hesitation is that the scope of the article is "intimate relationships" including non-romantic non-sexual relationships, but some of the research cited is specifically about romantic and sexual relationships, and the difference in scope isn't made clear in the text.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
The text appears to be free of copyright violations. The image File:How heterosexual couples have met, data from 2009 and 2017.png looks to me to be a copyright violation --- I'm going to inquire at WP:Media copyright questions
Follow up: the image in question has been nominated for deletion.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Very thorough

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
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:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
One image looks like it may be a copyright violation.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Fail due to nonresponse

Status query[edit]

A.mollusk, Of the universe, there hasn't been anything posted here for a month. Normally, I'd simply inquire about the status of the nomination; however, Of the universe, it appears that A.mollusk was a student in a class at UCLA—Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCLA/Psychology 220A (Fall, 2023)—that ended on December 22. A.mollusk stopped editing well before that; their most recent Wikipedia edit was December 5. Under the circumstances, it seems highly unlikely that they will be returning to Wikipedia. If you want to give up to seven days for a reply to my ping here, that's understandable; otherwise, if there are any issues remaining with the GA criteria, then this will have to be failed, or if it meets the criteria, it can be passed. (If it's close, that still means failure.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Of the universe (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]