Talk:Anna Harrison/GA2

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

Reviewer: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) 00:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm reading through the article now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm done with my review and it's a pass. Well done, Thebiguglyalien! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Though I made a bunch of edits myself during my review, I think this nomination was already strong. Thank you for improving coverage of an often-overlooked historical figure!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There were a few minor 1a issues with the text that I went ahead and fixed myself because they all looked like straightforward fixes. Do look over those changes to make sure I didn't cause anything to be inaccurate as a result. Per 1b, I also made a small edit to the lead to make it better reflect the body. Having made those few small changes myself, I think the text reads well and follows the MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Having made 3 edits to 3 citations, I don't see any further 2a issues with the citations. All references are to books that are held at university libraries, one reliable news source, and one reliable research institute. Citations are located in-line throughout. None of the sources are primary and so nothing appears to be original research. Earwig found no likely plagiarism.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * If this was FAC, I would prod more on tracking down more sources, but for GAN, this article appears to sufficiently cover the full length of Harrison's life and historiography concerning it. The prose covers everything without dwelling on any moments in her life in undue detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There was one minor change I made to the prose in the spirit of maintaining a neutral POV, but I think it was already doing a great job in this regard.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * This article has experienced very little editing in the 5 months since the nomination, and none of that is anything like an edit war.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The portrait had an improper copyright tag, so I went ahead and swapped that out. The photo's copyright tag looks appropriate. One of the two images had no caption, so I added one.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * After making a bunch of minor edits myself to assure compliance with the 6 criteria, I don't see any other issues to keep this nomination from passing.