Talk:Kimberly Anyadike/GA1

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Beginning the GA review for Kimberly Anyadike. Codyorb (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


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

Codyorb (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is clear and well written, with appropriately sized paragraphs.a There are no obvious spelling or grammar errors. No apparent violations of MOS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Reliable citations are used throughout the article. No plagiarism or original content found.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article is comprehensive. It does not leave out any major details and does not go into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No bias found in the article
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article is stable.
 * 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):
 * All images are appropriately used and licensed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Review reopened
Per a discussion at Codyorb's talk page, this review is being reopened, and further work will include contributions from Mike Christie, who has agreed to give a second opinion on the state of the article, given that Codyorb is new at reviewing, and some issues came to light. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-review by Mike Christie
The lead is too short; it should be a summary of the article. Currently it omits some significant information.

Other than that I think the article is ready for promotion to GA. A note for future reference: Earwig found this, but it appears that article was taken from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm currently trying to expand the lead with information from the body of the article. Codyorb (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the lead section to 2 paragraphs. Codyorb (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Codyorb. I've modified it a bit; the most important facts about her relate to the flight, so I cut some of the biographical material you added and put in a bit more about the flight.  This looks good enough now, so I am promoting the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)