Talk:Mistress Isabelle Brooks/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lijil (talk · contribs) 14:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Working on this, not yet done. Lijil (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


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

I like the article - it's well-written and to the point. As somebody who is not an expert on RuPaul I didn't know what Werq the World was - perhaps adding a couple of words to explain would be useful, but of course I was able to just click the link to read the explanation so this is just a suggestion not a requirement. I think some reviewers might say there are too many references, but I 'd certainly rather have too many than too few, and I don't think it's against the guidelines - it's not in the main page that Good Articles are supposed to consider, although you could look at WP:OVERCITE. I'm happy to pass this article once the references are all correctly formatted with author names etc, the reference mentioned above is fixed and the image captions have photographer attribution.
 * 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):
 * At least one of the references is incorrect - reference 2 ("What were the 'Drag Race' Season 15 Queens Like at Age 15?") goes to a short video about queering it up that not not support the claims. A lot of the references are not correctly formatted - you need to make sure the name of the person who wrote each of the article is included.
 * 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):
 * The images are great, but have CC-BY licences and I think that means that the caption should acknowledge the name of the photographer. Could you include that in the caption?
 * 1) Overall:
 * 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):
 * The images are great, but have CC-BY licences and I think that means that the caption should acknowledge the name of the photographer. Could you include that in the caption?
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thanks for reviewing! I am currently working to address your concerns. To start, this diff shows the addition of author details to all citations, as well as the merge of a duplicate reference. More to come...! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Here's added photo credits. I hope this is what you had in mind, but feel free to make appropriate adjustments, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the goth scene claim. Thanks! Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This looks great, and the article now fulfils all the GA criteria. Thanks for supplying the diffs for specific issues, that made it much easier to review. Good work - congratulations!! Lijil (talk) 09:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)