Talk:Lorena Hickok/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Lorena Hickok/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Lorena Hickok/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Open review. Will start soon! Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

:Great, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(beginning)

• "playing with the farm's animals" - what farm?

::Her father was a buttermaker; clarified.

• two adjacent blue links: diva Ernestine Schumann-Heink - is there a way to separate them?

::I've simply delinked diva.

• "cohabited" - lived with? - is there an extra meaning to "cohabited"?

::"Lived" is fine with me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is a wonderful article. I could criticize certain parts (e.g. [http://books.google.com/books?id=wQcMDdFC1QEC&pg=PA223&dq=Hick+isbn:9780684804484&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4hbiULCqCYT28gSt0IG4DQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Hick%20isbn%3A9780684804484&f=false Goodwin pages 223-224] seems to present a case that Eleanor was not homosexual, or primarily so) but I'm sure that discussion could go on and on. You have presented a concise summary of Hickok's life. Much appreciated!

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?
2. :a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:{{GAList/check|y}}
3. ::
4. :b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation: {{GAList/check|y}}
5. ::
6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
7. :a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout: {{GAList/check|y}}
8. ::
9. :b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
10. ::
11. :c. no original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. ::
13. Is it broad in its coverage?
14. :a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic: {{GAList/check|y}}
15. ::
16. :b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style): {{GAList/check|y}}
17. ::
18. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
19. :fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
20. ::
21. Is it stable?
22. : no edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
23. ::
24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
25. :a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{GAList/check|y}}
26. ::
27. :b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
28. ::
29. Overall:
30. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
31. :: Pass!
32. ::

Great job! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks both for the review and for your copyedits! I'll take another look at the Goodwin pages and see if I can add a bit more. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)