Talk:Madusa/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems encountered when checking against the quick fail criteria, on to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Lead: two successive sentences start with  She later...;
 * Early career: six sentences start with She...', consider using her family name or varying the sentence structure to improve readability. This fault is common throughout the article.
 * Personal life: She also worked at Arby's ... I know that you have wikilinked Arby's but it would be better to explain e.g. She worked at an Arby's restaurant. I don't think that chain is quite as famous as MacDonalds. ...she released a CD of her singing in Japanese. Clumsy, suggest something like ...she released a CD of songs sung in Japanese.
 * Suggest a thorough copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * I fixed one deadlink using CheckLinks. References check out. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, the prose as noted above needs copy-editing. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Much improved. I am happy to confirm that this article deserves Ga status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, the prose as noted above needs copy-editing. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Much improved. I am happy to confirm that this article deserves Ga status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, the prose as noted above needs copy-editing. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Much improved. I am happy to confirm that this article deserves Ga status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have copyedited the article, specifically focusing on sentence structure. Is it sufficient? Nikki ♥  311   02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)