Talk:Murder of Dora Bloch/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Taking a look now. I will copyedit as I go (please revert any bits I inadvertently change the meaning of) and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Overall the article is pretty cohesive and (I think) on track to GA status but is a little short and could do with a little context/embellishing (dependent on the existence of sources I suspect)


 * more on her background and how she came to speak six languages would be interesting as this is why she ended up as an interpreter. The sentence on languages could be moved up to near the beginning of the biographical info then.


 * maybe adding when her husband had died
 * Cannot find a reliable source for this, only, which is user-generated


 * adding any other information on how Britain cut ties (unanimous?) and maybe what impact it had.
 * Added some information on causes, British Government reactions and Amin's reaction later


 * any info on how the Tanzanian soldiers found the body
 * Cannot find any, sources are all very vague about it


 *  Visual identification was precluded because her face was badly burned - "precluded" sounds a bit odd..."impossible"?
 * Fixed


 * any effects on her children? Did they publicly make comment on the impact? join in demanding answers from Uganda?

Status query
Cas Liber, Joseph2302, where does this stand now? I don't see any response to the first and last points in the review, and this page hasn't been posted to since March 6, three and a half weeks ago, nor any edits made to the article since then. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Both points are dependent on there being material from reliable sources. If there is none, they are not actionable and I think the article then fulfils criteria to the best of its ability. Let's ping Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any further sources that provide additional for this event/her life, so in my opinion this article is as complete as I can make it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to make a decision now. --MrClog (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality: - this is fine, I fell into "reading" mode where the prose was smooth enough for me to not think about it...
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources: (also copyvio clear)
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - if there ain't other sources, then there ain't other sources. All good and thanks for checking Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)