Talk:Nat Hentoff/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 12:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well written. Would be picking up the review, and amending straight forward changed. Feel free to revert/change any mistakes that I make while I edit the article.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * We need a source date for all the web citations (if possible, as all of them may not mention one).
 * Also, replace references 17, 23, and 24. They do not seem reliable.
 * References 29, 30, 31, and 36 are not working, so replace that too.
 * There are a lot of places with two continuous spaces.
 * "which published his work until his death" his only one work or works?
 * "and his writing was also published in..." was it only one writing or writings?
 * Link Boston, Massachusetts.
 * Lastly, there is a slight copyvio issue. Would be great if that could be dealt with.
 * It still shows with this and this. Just slight paraphrasing is required. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still present with the first one (nytimes). A slight paraphrasing will do. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 05:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. Although, if you check now, it is done.
 * We need a source date for all the web citations (if possible, as all of them may not mention one).
 * Also, replace references 17, 23, and 24. They do not seem reliable.
 * References 29, 30, 31, and 36 are not working, so replace that too.
 * There are a lot of places with two continuous spaces.
 * "which published his work until his death" his only one work or works?
 * "and his writing was also published in..." was it only one writing or writings?
 * Link Boston, Massachusetts.
 * Lastly, there is a slight copyvio issue. Would be great if that could be dealt with.
 * It still shows with this and this. Just slight paraphrasing is required. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still present with the first one (nytimes). A slight paraphrasing will do. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 05:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. Although, if you check now, it is done.
 * It is still present with the first one (nytimes). A slight paraphrasing will do. here Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 05:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. Although, if you check now, it is done.

The rest seems fine to me. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * All done. &mdash;  MB laze Lightning T 04:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Great work! The prose is especially good, as there were almost no errors. It is a definite pass! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)