Talk:Pauli Murray/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article North8000 (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance this appears to be so well done that it will be an easy one to review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion[edit]

Sorry that this section will be short because the article is so well done. This article could pass now as it is, but perhaps I might give feedback on and discuss two areas. Possibly it might be because it wasn't in the sources, but I finished the article feeling very curious abotu two aspects that weren't covered:

She was a prolific and famous writer. But there is nothing in there about her starting to write or how she cam to start to write. The article sort of just starts stating the books that she wrote.

She was obvious a very special, unique and strong individual who came from (I think) humble upbringings. The article doesn't seem to give any coverage to how that got started or where it came from. A little on that would seem a nice addition if it were available from the sources.

What do you think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I added a line about the initial genesis for Proud Shoes that I remembered from the oral histories that may help with the first aspect. For the second, it's hard to say. She was an odd character--tough as nails in some respects, but also had breakdowns serious enough to require repeated hospitalization. I don't know that she attributed her toughness and drive to any specific inspiration or source, at least in the material I've consulted. I haven't read her autobiographies, though, so it's possible there's more detail there. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sometimes oddness leads to greatness. I think that more on the above 2 topics would be nice future additions, but certainly nothing to interfere with GA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist[edit]

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria.North8000 (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 3 images, all are free so no article-specific use rationales are required. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result[edit]

One of the easiest review that I've done because the article is so well done. I think that future expansions in the two areas I raised in "review discussion" would be a nice future additions, but there is nothing there of the magnitude that would impact passing Good article. This article passes. Nice work! North8000 (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]