Talk:Élizabeth Teissier/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 08:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I am concerned that there is so little coverage of Teissier's youth/early life.
 * The above still stands, that she is born and then is married all within a single sentence. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't anything available about her early life/childhood/time at university/etc? Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Ref #38 (to "Le Monde") is a dead link.
 * A link to a non-dead link from a notable organization is also provided, but it seemed like the main link should be to where it was. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any references about the Wikimedia lawsuit in English?
 * There's the Wikipedia blog, but that doesn't seem reliable. I don't think she's well-known enough in English-speaking countries to have been worth a report. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * The lead image though "dated" relies on the subject's asserted date. Are there any other images that could possibly work?
 * I don't think it'd be possible readily, especially since we can't really go fair use when we have a free-licensed one, unless the image was shown to not be free-licensed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat funny - I found the image used as a cover illustration on Tessier's 2006 Astrology book, so her (assuming the Commons editor "Elizabethteissier" is the subject) date in the File is in error. Shearonink (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the image's date is identified by the subject that will have to stand. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I need to do a few more read-throughs to check some things out. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still "On Hold" pending the *education claims & the *reference-styles. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I am not passing this article to a WP:GA status at this time, in my opinion it does not fulfill 1A. 03:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat funny - I found the image used as a cover illustration on Tessier's 2006 Astrology book, so her (assuming the Commons editor "Elizabethteissier" is the subject) date in the File is in error. Shearonink (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the image's date is identified by the subject that will have to stand. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I need to do a few more read-throughs to check some things out. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Still "On Hold" pending the *education claims & the *reference-styles. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I am not passing this article to a WP:GA status at this time, in my opinion it does not fulfill 1A. 03:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I am not passing this article to a WP:GA status at this time, in my opinion it does not fulfill 1A. 03:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Further thoughts
In my opinion, because of various issues with this article does not fulfill the GA Criteria at this time, specifically 1A. That references within a WP:GA agree in their form is not strictly part of the WP:GA Criteria but that aspect personally gives me pause in that it makes verification more difficult for our readers. I will be leaving this Review open for a day or two more and in any case will be posting my final Review later this week. If I do think a Fail is necessary I want it understood that I would be glad to review it again after or other interested editors can adjust and correct its various issues. I have enjoyed learning about this woman in the course of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * claims made by the subject about their levels of education
 * early life section that is truncated in its development - born & married all in one sentence