Talk:The Student (short story)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. 15:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * No concerns in Lead, Plot, Publication, or Reception. Fantastic job.
 * "He described the effect of "The Student" as indescribably moving" - variations of describe get used in close proximity here. I think it would read better as "He said the effect..."
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concerns
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * 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:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig returns minor results. AFG for print sources.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * The publication details go no further than 1894. Has the work been republished outside of Tales and Stories?
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no evidence of edit warring or vandalism
 * 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:
 * rationale provided
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Caption is suitable.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * One minor copyedit suggestion and one question about publication. Other than that, this is by far the easiest GA pass I've had. Fantastic work User:Bobamnertiopsis. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call on the 'described as indescribably' bit; that didn't even occur to me! I'll look into subsequent publications over the next few days and let you know when I figure something out. Thanks for the review! Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 19:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Please ping me when work is complete. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the expansion. I think this is suitable for GA status now. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)