Talk:Lise with a Parasol/GA1

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

Reviewer: GnocchiFan (talk · contribs) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * An excellent article, very in-depth and reliably sourced. Can see no issues with it whatsoever, looks good to go! –GnocchiFan (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned here, another user has noted issues with duplicate refs and possible references needed in footnotes, but says it doesn't need to be re-assessed. Apologies if this review was not sufficiently thorough; this is my first time reviewing articles for GA on Wikipedia. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. Can you point out the dupe refs so I can fix them?  My eyes aren't as good as yours. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither can I, if truth be told. I've asked FunkMunk on his talk page. Thanks for your patience GnocchiFan (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No hurry on this. I will also take a look later after I get back from work. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FunkMunk didn't mention "duplicate refs" but WP:duplinks, better known as MOS:REPEATLINK. The ones I noticed are several paragraphs apart, so that's permissible under that guideline's "and at the first occurrence in a section". As for unreferenced footnotes: I see two, La Esméralda and the parents of George Bibescu; these seem trivial and non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, no worries. Just fixed both.  The info about Bibescu I had in there was wrong.  Most embarrassing, I named his stepmother as his birth mother.  Now corrected.  Thank you everyone.  Please help identify additional issues if possible. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An excellent article, very in-depth and reliably sourced. Can see no issues with it whatsoever, looks good to go! –GnocchiFan (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned here, another user has noted issues with duplicate refs and possible references needed in footnotes, but says it doesn't need to be re-assessed. Apologies if this review was not sufficiently thorough; this is my first time reviewing articles for GA on Wikipedia. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. Can you point out the dupe refs so I can fix them?  My eyes aren't as good as yours. Viriditas (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither can I, if truth be told. I've asked FunkMunk on his talk page. Thanks for your patience GnocchiFan (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No hurry on this. I will also take a look later after I get back from work. Viriditas (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FunkMunk didn't mention "duplicate refs" but WP:duplinks, better known as MOS:REPEATLINK. The ones I noticed are several paragraphs apart, so that's permissible under that guideline's "and at the first occurrence in a section". As for unreferenced footnotes: I see two, La Esméralda and the parents of George Bibescu; these seem trivial and non-controversial and unlikely to be challenged. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, no worries. Just fixed both.  The info about Bibescu I had in there was wrong.  Most embarrassing, I named his stepmother as his birth mother.  Now corrected.  Thank you everyone.  Please help identify additional issues if possible. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)