Talk:The Widows of Culloden/GA1

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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Hi, I'll be reviewing this. It's a bit of a longer article and fashion is not my area of expertise, so bear with me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Prose comments
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Minor issues resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * No outstanding concerns. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * References format is acceptable, though I'm surprised to see the Sfn-style references are not listed out anywhere. Not saying it's wrong, but I'm more familiar with a separate section that lists out the Sfn references, such as at Battle of the Bulge. I know you plan to bring this to FAC, and someone might say something about that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Sourced largely to trade publications, published books, and news organizations. Some primary sources, but I don't see anything I question the accuracy of. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Article is extensively cited and predominantly uses secondary sources. I cannot find any instances of original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig check only pulls up quotes. From a brief look at a few sources I do not see any issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Article is quite comprehensive, I cannot imagine anything more which is necessary to add for GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Article is fairly detailed, but I wouldn't say it's too detailed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Opinions are attributed to sources, and in general I see a fair balance of viewpoints. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Edit history shows steady improvement, no issues with stability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * I've reviewed the copyright status of all photos. Fair use photos have valid and complete rationales, the remainder are appropriately licensed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Suggest adding alt text, but otherwise this criterion is satisfied. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Happy to pass the article at this point. Excellent work, PMC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the body, Gemma Ward should be linked the first time her name is mentioned, not the second time.
 * American actress Sarah Jessica Parker attended the opening of exhibition AngloMania: Tradition and Transgression in British Fashion (2006) the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art wearing... There appears to be a missing word here.
 * shown at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2011 (The Met) Shouldn't the parenthetical (The Met) go immediately after the name, before the date?
 * That's about all I can find. Article is very well written. Happy to promote once these few things are addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks enormously for the review :) You know I appreciate it! I've made the above tweaks, and have reorganized the refs section so anything that's a journal or book (ie anything likely to be SFN'd) is in the bibliography. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)