Talk:Alice Tangerini/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) 10:25, 16 April 2018 (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:
 * "an essential mentor" reads a little drive by? "Tangerini primarily does her illustrations in the United States National Herbarium,[2][3] and worked under American botanist Warren H. Wagner." may work better without the tense jump. "As of 2015" what is its current status?
 * I have trimmed down "an essential mentor" to just "her mentor". The tense shift is needed in the sentence as (at least to the best of my knowledge), she no longer works under Wagner as he died. For the third question, I could not find any updates regarding the project in question. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2018 (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:
 * Seems like every source is reliable and every statement backed by a reliable source.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * "Best known for" does not seem to be explicitly sourced anywhere. With the caveat that I cannot read every source: The "six hours" in the source only refer to one specific session seems like. Not sure that "She also serves as a board member on the American Society of Botanical Artists" and the "groundbreaker" quote are supported by the source.
 * I have removed the "best known for" part from the lead. I have added a new source to support the "board member" bit. The groundbreaker part is support in the source through the image caption. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Assuming that there are no reliable critical sources, that is.
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. I really should do more projects outside of my typical scope, so I explore further in this direction. I was inspired to create this article after seeing this image here. I may email the Smithsonian for a picture of her to add to the article. I did an internship with one of their offices in the past so maybe they will be helpful. Either way, hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Still unsure about the "six hours" thing. Also, I wonder if one can get rid (expand/remove) the last one-sentence paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I accidentally overlooked your comment on the "six hours" part so my apologies for that. That comment is supported from the following statement (For six hours the teenaged artist carefully drew this shriveled plant exactly as it appeared.) from the cited source. Please let me know if you have any further comment on that. I have also addressed the issue with the one-sentence paragraph. Hope you are doing well, and thank you again for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the wording of the six hour sentence in the source implies that it applies to only one event, whereas the article claims it was a general fact. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how the sentence implies that though. This is the part of the sentence that reflects that (with each of their lessons adding up to six hours), and the each signifies that each lesson lasted up to six hours. I am not sure how to further clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. You are talking about "each" lesson, the source only about "one specific lesson". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like this is ready, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)