Talk:Jeannette Rankin/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: AlastairJHannaford (talk · contribs) 14:28, 28 July 2019 (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.	This article is well written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I would like to see a use of sources in the lead section, as while many of the points are sourced later on the lead should be sorted as the rest of the article, it currently contains no sources, although this is not a requirement to be given good article status. The other criteria are met to a sufficient standard.
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.	The article is sufficiently referenced.
	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).	The inline citations are generally good, with a balance of sources of high credibility.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I am confident that this is true, as it is well sourced and leaves no space for original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I am confident that this is true, having read through the sources I do not perceive any such violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article sufficiently addresses the topic at hand.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does not make unnecessary tangents and remains to the point throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable.
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.	They are in order.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	This is also true, the photos are highly relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article meets the criteria of a Good Article, congratulations.

Comment[edit]

The standard for the lead section referencing is different from the body of the article; as MOS:LEAD, one of the "well-written" criteria, concludes: The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. Basically, if there are any points in the lead section that you believe are controversial or likely to be challenged or are a quote, then they should be sourced per the MOS:LEADCITE subsection, and you should note what they are so the nominator can add sources; if not, then the lead section can in fact be entirely free of citations and still meet the full GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, the way I had read it had placed greater focus on the prior paragraph, I feel that this article would still benefit from citations in the lead section, I have accordingly amended my initial review.AlastairJHannaford (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]