Talk:Sybil (cat)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 01:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Initial assessment
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * I copy edited the article and made some other style edits.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * Moved some cites around to better fit the claims being substantiated.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Used Earwig's tool.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I see there was a dispute about citing the Daily Mail, but that it is not cited in the current version of the article. Are you foregoing citing the publication at this point?
 * @Voorts - I think so at this point, yes. Unless you'd allow this article to cite the Daily Mail as an exception, I don't think that'll be happening. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would fail the GA under 2.b. if the article cited the Daily Mail. If you still want to include a citation, we can keep this on hold and you can try to reach consensus on the talk page of the article; if you go that route, I'd recommend getting an opinion at RSN first. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Voorts - In that case, I won't cite the Daily Mail at all. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. I have no other issues and I will pass the article shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up the review. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I see there was a dispute about citing the Daily Mail, but that it is not cited in the current version of the article. Are you foregoing citing the publication at this point?
 * @Voorts - I think so at this point, yes. Unless you'd allow this article to cite the Daily Mail as an exception, I don't think that'll be happening. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would fail the GA under 2.b. if the article cited the Daily Mail. If you still want to include a citation, we can keep this on hold and you can try to reach consensus on the talk page of the article; if you go that route, I'd recommend getting an opinion at RSN first. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Voorts - In that case, I won't cite the Daily Mail at all. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. I have no other issues and I will pass the article shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up the review. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Voorts - I think so at this point, yes. Unless you'd allow this article to cite the Daily Mail as an exception, I don't think that'll be happening. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, I would fail the GA under 2.b. if the article cited the Daily Mail. If you still want to include a citation, we can keep this on hold and you can try to reach consensus on the talk page of the article; if you go that route, I'd recommend getting an opinion at RSN first. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Voorts - In that case, I won't cite the Daily Mail at all. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. I have no other issues and I will pass the article shortly. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking up the review. Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * Fair use rationale looks good.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Final assessment

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

voorts (talk/contributions) 13:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Per above discussion.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: