Talk:Jane Withers/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 12:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * *"Wojcik opines that this introduced the narrative of queerness through alternative family structures"
 * Who is Wojcik, and why are they quoted here? No Wikipedia article on this person, and  If this mention is left, reader needs some clue who this is.
 * *"Withers was allowed to go on chaperoned dates with groups of same-age boys in her early teens"
 * Needs tweaking - this sounds like it was just Withers and an entire group boys on a singular date. The source says "with half a dozen or so boys of her age" - I think that meant her available dates to chose from, not being with all of them at once.
 * *"imprint her handprints"
 * Sort of repetitive. Maybe "place her handprints"
 * ✅ Fixes made. I thought it was Wikipedia style to just use the last name of an author, but I added in her name and the book title. Yoninah (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * 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:
 * Per This talk page conversation, the sourcing style and references are in accordance with guidelines.
 * 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:
 * 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):
 * 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:
 * Nominator has been the primary editor for most of 2020
 * 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:
 * Well done. Extremely interesting article. — Maile  (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Well done. Extremely interesting article. — Maile  (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well done. Extremely interesting article. — Maile  (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)