Talk:Louise Bryant/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rosiestep (talk · contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one within a week. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Super! Thank you. Finetooth (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * wls: Russian Revolution, Senate, Nevada, University of Nevada in Reno, University of Oregon


 * Early life
 * wl: stump speaker, Puget Sound
 * delink UNR
 * If the name of the sorority is mentioned in some ref, please name it


 * Greenwich Village and Cape Cod
 * "an established journalist" - the previous section already described him as an "established writer "
 * Mary Heaton Vorse - first mention should be full name, but she can be referred to as surname thereafter
 * Sara Bard Field - first mention should be full name, but she can be referred to by surname thereafter
 * "Bryant wrote to a note to..." - Bryant wrote in a note to


 * New York
 * wl: October Revolution


 * Death and legacy
 * Jan. - spell out as January
 * wl: Yale University
 * "in Sterling Memorial Library" - in the Sterling Memorial Library


 * See also
 * unnecessary as the Communist Party of the United States and Eugene O'Neill are mentioned in the article


 * Images
 * I don't think the one of Benito Mussolini is necessary, but it's only my opinion and not a suggestion

Few recommendations; well-written article. I'll put in on hold for the usual 7 days in case you're busy with other things. Please ping me when you're done. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe I've made all the changes you recommended plus a couple of others along the way. Please poke me up if you see anything else amiss. Finetooth (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good job. Looks adequate for GA. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to review this article. Finetooth (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)