Talk:Tornado over Kansas/GA1

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 02:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)



Observations

 * 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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is good and clear; article follows Manual of Style.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * References directly address the painting. Reference 2 is an excellent introduction to this artist and his work.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A good blend of history, appreciation and criticism of this painting.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV is preserved.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article shows no history of edit warring.


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Image = public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer. 


 * 1) Overall:
 * A balanced presentation of this work of art (and of this artist whom many Kansas peoples were critical of).      --Whiteguru (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)