Talk:Katharine Way/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 11:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well-written, well-structured and interesting as always
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Another well-written article. Unfortunately I don't have access to the books, but everything in the websites (except for the birth dates) match. Am consistently impressed with the high-quality of original writing and synthesis within your writing, Hawkeye. Am promoting and have made the relevant changes. --LT910001 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Minor question, did you use the death index (http://www.mocavo.com/Social-Security-Death-Index/246389) to find the correct date of birth? I have been a little surprised when reviewing your articles how inaccurately a person's major life dates have been reported. --LT910001 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This one was a particularly difficult one because one major source was inaccurate enough to require a footnote. I don't recall using the SSN index on this article, although it was used on some others. It's often disappointing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)