Talk:Lucy Stone/GA1

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

This article is absolutely phenomenal - it's very well-researched, very well-written, and very well-referenced. It's more than adequate for GA status as is - indeed, I think it's already at FA-level.

I'd only make one comment - it might be an idea to watch the tone in a couple of places where a tiny bit of point-of-view seems to creep in (such as labelling Woodhull "self-serving", even though she probably was). Nonetheless, passing the article for GA without further comment - surprised it's taken this long. Rebecca (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, and thank you very much for reviewing the article for GA!. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)