Talk:Gina Krog/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 03:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Overall, well resourced with a good plotted out timeline
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: -- changed to  Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article mentions both "Christiania" and "Kristiania", and both links direct to Oslo. Stick to just one spelling; you might want to add in parentheses if this is a neighborhood or suburb of Oslo.
 * Nevermind. Having now read the lead section in Oslo, I now understand why these are appropriately different. Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (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:  -- changed to  Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 citation needed
 * Thank you for the edit! Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (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):
 * The "suffrage work" section does border on going into too much detail, but it does stay on topic, and to be honest I'm not quite sure what I would cut out. Would be worth trying to summarize a bit more and leave out a few less important details if you pursue featured article status
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: -- changed to  Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * just some minor edits needed to pass. I'll place on hold for 7 days. Cheers. Tea with toast   (話)  04:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes! Pass! Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 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: -- changed to  Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * just some minor edits needed to pass. I'll place on hold for 7 days. Cheers. Tea with toast   (話)  04:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes! Pass! Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * just some minor edits needed to pass. I'll place on hold for 7 days. Cheers. Tea with toast   (話)  04:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the changes! Pass! Tea with toast   (話)  23:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)