Talk:Betsy Blackwell/GA1

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

Reviewer: HueSatLum (talk · contribs) 01:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Too short; needs a major expansion
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Needs relevant images, especially one of Blackwell herself.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this. It is a short article that is not ready for GA status. This might be one of those topics that just isn't notable enough to have significant information about them to write a GA-worthy article. A two-paragraph, 300-word article isn't long enough to provide comprehensive information about her life. Regards, HueSatLum 01:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Needs relevant images, especially one of Blackwell herself.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this. It is a short article that is not ready for GA status. This might be one of those topics that just isn't notable enough to have significant information about them to write a GA-worthy article. A two-paragraph, 300-word article isn't long enough to provide comprehensive information about her life. Regards, HueSatLum 01:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)