Talk:Shannon Lucid/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I'll be reviewing this article. I can't imagine it's going to fail, but all the same, I'll go over it and check everything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Prose is exemplary. A few minor typos, but I fixed them as I read the article.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead cuts off after 2003, leaving the rest ambiguous. I've added a sentence on her retirement. In the body, I changed the phrases "gave teeth" and "you".
 * 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:
 * Has notes and references lists.
 * 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:
 * Comprehensive citations. All sources appear to be reliable.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Comprehensive citations. Spot check suggests information accurately corresponds to citations.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * No apparent violations. Passes Earwig test.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Adequately covers early life and career
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * The only section of concern is STS-58. It goes into detail about the roles and responsibilities of other members of the crew, which may be unnecessary for this article. After consideration, this information is still brief enough to provide reasonable context.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * None of that pesky anti-space bias (or any other editorial bias).
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No recent edits.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All images are tagged as public domain.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * All images are relevant and have descriptive captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article meets and exceeds the GA criteria in nearly all areas. I found no issues but a few minor nitpicks that could be fixed immediately, so I've addressed them myself. This article easily passes its good article nomination. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)