Talk:Diamond Tooth Lil/GA1

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I will be starting this review shortly. I have made a couple minor clarifications to the article's wording but nothing substantial.


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Exceeds the minimum criteria of simply being clear and concise. Explains a potentially-confusing situation where multiple women used the same alias around the same time with a minimum of fuss. No issues with spelling and grammar. Lead neatly summarizes the article while being interesting enough that the reader wants to explore further. Layout is clear - one section for an overview, then one for each notable Diamond Lil including the fictional one. No issues with words to watch.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Can't access sources 6, 8 & 9 due to paywalls, but the citation details match and they are reliable publications (New York Times and Washington Post) so I have no concerns. Quotes are cited, no paraphrasing problems.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers all the important known facts about the notable women who used the name, but does not go into excess detail on any portion.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Looks like a pass to me, and nice work! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Looks like a pass to me, and nice work! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)