Talk:Shandi Finnessey/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Darkwind (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Criteria

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The "Personal" section is one of the most random sets of trivia I've seen in a while; it reads like a list that had the bullet points and line breaks removed. However, it's not enough to count as "unnecessary detail". For future improvement, one might consider either eliminating some of the trivia, or working it into a more coherent narrative. (This is a suggestion for improvement and is not required to meet the GA criteria.)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments and discussion

All criteria have been met; my only material suggestion for future improvement is as above, regarding the Personal section. Congratulations on the good article! —Darkwind (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)