Talk:Nicholas Colasanto/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) ''Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
 * 6) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
 * 9) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 10) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 11) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 12) No original research.
 * 13) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 14) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 15) Neutral.
 * 16) Stable.
 * 17) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 18) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Hello,. I'll be doing this review and will use the checklist above to register progress. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Report
One fair use relevant image and the article is stable. Will continue later. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is fine and I'm promoting it to GA. Quite a bit of copyediting was necessary but nothing major so, instead of creating a list here and putting everything on hold, I made the necessary changes. One thing you need to watch is conflicting use of sfn and harvnb. I prefer sfn so I transferred the two or three harvnb citations to sfn format, for consistency and efficiency reasons, and added ref=harv to the three books concerned.

Some reviewers might say the article is too short at 3,782b and 628 words of readable prose size, but I would strongly disagree. Obviously, there is scope for expansion but that might well introduce excessive unnecessary detail. I doubt if there is much more that can be said about Nicholas Colasanto within a summary article and so it does comply with both GACR 3a and 3b.

Well done. Geronimo! No Great Shaker (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)