Talk:Ken Bone (personality)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Of the universe (talk · contribs) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article. Of the universe (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The article is well written. It's short and sweet--- an appropriate length for the subject.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * 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. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * Looks great! It will pass pending one change: The only problem is in the lead, the article refers to Bone as an activist. There is no citation in the body of the article to support the characterization of him as an activist.  The text needs a citation for "activist," or else the lead and short description need a small change to remove the word "activist."
 * Changes made!
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * Looks great! It will pass pending one change: The only problem is in the lead, the article refers to Bone as an activist. There is no citation in the body of the article to support the characterization of him as an activist.  The text needs a citation for "activist," or else the lead and short description need a small change to remove the word "activist."
 * Changes made!


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Passed spot check!
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Passed spot check!
 * 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):
 * Short and sweet! It is the appropriate length for the subject.
 * 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Looks good
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pass!
 * Thank you so much for the review, and for your patience. I have made the requested changes in the article - please let me know if there's anything else I should do. Best, ~Liancetalk 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pass!
 * Thank you so much for the review, and for your patience. I have made the requested changes in the article - please let me know if there's anything else I should do. Best, ~Liancetalk 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Of the universe, are you prepared to pass this article? -- asilvering (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thank you for pinging me. —Of the universe (say hello) 01:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)