Talk:Loretta Preska/GA1

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


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

It's a very well-written and interesting article. After reading it once, I could not find any prose issues, and it is perfectly understandable for someone not trained in law (me). I've noticed that law is one of the areas that Wikipedia does not cover very much at all, so it's good to have articles such as this one. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * For further expansion of the article, I would recommend mining Google Scholar and HeinOnline, which you can get through WP:TWL. However, the article adequately covers the major issues, since she does not seem to be known for academic legal commentary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: