Talk:Sienna Shaw/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 09:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this GAN as part of the ongoing GAN backlog drive.

Initial comments

 * It is possible that there is copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported 49.5% in similarity. Will analyse this in depth later in the review. False positive.
 * There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
 * The article is stable. There has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
 * No previous GA reviews.

General comments

 * Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
 * No problems were found in the lede.
 * No problems were found in the rest of the article.
 * Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
 * I've replaced curly quotes with straight ones.
 * Add a short description.
 * Add alt text to the infobox image.
 * In the infobox, change the break tags to an unbulleted list using the first item

second item template.
 * The article complies with the rest of MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, MOS:WTW, and MOS:WAF guidelines. There are no embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:EMBED.
 * Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
 * References section with a template is present in the article.
 * Fixed one referencing issue.
 * Listed references are reliable, they are mostly news websites.
 * "Student" and her mother's name in the infobox is unsourced.
 * Ref 26 has author link to Steve Barton who died in 2001. I doubt that it's the same person, so that link should be removed.
 * Spotchecked Ref 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 25–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
 * Ref 14 cites blisters but not cuts and bruises.
 * Checking potential copyright violations.
 * False positive. The reason why it was picked up is the quotes in the article. I conclude that there is no copyright violations, and the quotes are properly used in the article.
 * Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
 * The article addresses the main aspects and it stays focused on the topics.
 * Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
 * The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
 * Checking whether the article is stable.
 * As noted in the initial comments, there has not been any edit warring in the recent period.
 * Checking images.
 * All looks good, images are properly licensed.

Final comments
The article will be on hold for a week so that you can fix these issues that I've pointed out in the review. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * All issues have been addressed so I'll promote the article to GA status. Vacant0 (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)