Talk:James Francis Dwyer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria All of my suggestions are open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * These are my copy edits. If you disagree with any of them, we can discuss.
 * Looks great; much appreciated.
 * "The sentence was considered to be extremely" - whose opinion is this? It should be attributed inline or rewritten as "The sentence was extremely"
 * Two sources have considered it to be extreme. I've just rewritten it as you suggested though.
 * "He relocated to New York the following year," - is this New York City, specifically?
 * Yep that's right. I've clarified this now.
 * The lead doesn't seem to include anything from the Legacy section. I think the fact about him writing 1000+ short stories AND/OR him being the first millionaire Australian writer are worthy inclusions.
 * Done.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * The birthdate isn't cited.
 * I've placed a citation in the infobox.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I added alt text for the Argosy cover.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This is in good shape. There are a few minor points that need to be addressed, but otherwise this one's ready to pass. FYI, I will be offline until Monday, June 18. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your review . I think I've addressed all your concerns. let me know if you have any more. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)