GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 10:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. Hopefully we will start soon. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


 

Comments from Reidgreg

I don't want to interrupt this review process, but I was already doing some follow-up on the WP:GOCER copy edit of the article, with particular attention to close paraphrasing and quotations. I have not directly edited the article and will post my notes here as advice. I yield to the GA reviewer who I'm sure will do a more thorough job of examining the article.

A few possible changes (not needed, but nice):

Paraphrasing:

I see you've done quite a few DYKs and GAs, so you're probably familiar with the Earwig tool which can help identify potential copyvio. If you haven't already, feel free to list this article at WP:CAN10K. Please ((ping|Reidgreg)) if you have any questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reidgreg, very kind of you to leave these suggestions here. Thank you very much for stopping by and taking time to look at the article. Your suggestions have been very helpful and I've revised the article accordingly. Your help is much appreciated. Ashleyyoursmile! 16:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

 On hold

Whiteguru, just letting you know that the GOCE advice has been implemented already. --Ashleyyoursmile! 03:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashleyyoursmile: Thank you. I have been in attendance on other matters, should be along to the review soon. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whiteguru, no worries. Please take your time. Ashleyyoursmile! 06:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 


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):
  • There is excessive linking in the infobox. I think we can remove links to 'Canadian literature' and 'Hardback' from the infobox.
  •  Done
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  • Copyvio check completed: no issues.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • Given this is a children's picture book, the reviews are important and have been well utilised.
  • In the Reception section, it tells, Critics praised the book and some readers may ask who?. Are we referring to critics or reviewers here?
  •  Done revised it to "Reviewers".
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • NPOV is presented in the article.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  • Page created 11 April 2021
  • Page has had 9 editors for 67 edits;
  • 1,599 page views in the last 60 days
  • page is considered stable
  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):
  • Birdsong (Julie Flett 2019) book cover.jpg = Non-free use rationale book cover: (acceptable for picture book)
  1. Overall:
  • Hi Whiteguru, thank you very much for the review. I've revised the article accordingly. Please let me if it looks alright and anything else needs to be addressed. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

 Passed