Talk:Lilias Armstrong/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This one, for review, I shall take. Sagecandor (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Umimmak (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: So the writing overall is quite good. The lede is a little bit short, but it functions adequately as an intro to the rest of the article's content in the main body text. For good article, it's okay. For the future, I'd recommend expanding the intro so the reader can just read the intro and come away with a good summary of the entire article without reading the rest. The structural organization and layout is excellent. Great table of contents and very helpful for the reader to either read the page all in one sitting, and/or come back to it and navigate it later for future reference. There are a couple of longer quotes and a blockquote that can be removed which would improve the stylistic presentation of the article, but this can be done later.
 * 2. Verifiable?: Very very very good citation style. In-line citations provided for every statement in the article. Further, great job on the layout of the references sections. These include notes and references, explanatory footnotes, citations, and references. I would recommend having them each be a level-two header and getting rid of the parent header. And changing "explanatory footnotes" to just "fotnotes".
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, of course this article is very thorough, giving the reader a nice intro, though as stated above that could be expanded upon a bit more, and an overview of the subject's life, and her career as well.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: The article is written in a neutral tone and passes NPOV, all statements and assertions are backed up by plenty of references and are quoted at times to be in the voice of the source itself.
 * 5. Stable? Talk page used mostly for notes by the writer. No edit-warring to speak of for at least a few months.
 * 6. Images?: All the images hosted on Wikimedia Commons have appropriate licensing on their image pages. There is one fair use image, the image of the subject herself in the infobox. It is a pity not to have a free-use image of her.

Quite lovely to see such a high quality article about a woman scientist. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)