Talk:Titina Silá/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{Archive top green

| status =

| result = Passed. simongraham (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

}}

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 12:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This looks a very interesting article from Grnrchst (talk). I look forward to assessing to see if it meet the requirements to be a Good Article. simongraham (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• The article is notable as evidenced by coverage in multiple sources.
• The article is of reasonable length, with 1,065 words of readable prose.
• The lead is a reasonable relative length at 169 words.
• 87.3% of authorship is by Grnrchst, with contributions from 24 other users.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• There is no evidence of edit wars.
• It is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
• Earwig gives a 52.5% chance of copyright violation with an article online at Afrikan Train. It also gives a 50.7% change of violation with a page produced by the All-African People's Revolutionary Party. The majority of this seems to be a eulogy quoted by all the items. The source given in the article is from a printed in 1979, which predates all three.
• I note that the reference for this quote is above it rather than at the end. I suggest moving it to the end of the paragraph.

:* Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, the source should be appended to the introductory sentence, which is what I have done. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Can you please confirm the term "war heroine" is in the source or amend as WP:GENDER.

:* Neutralised. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Please hyphenate Guinea-Bissau in the lead.

:* Ah whoops, done. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• There is a duplicate link to Portuguese, one in the text and one connected to the translation template. Please remove the latter.

:* Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Please remove duplicate links toAmílcar Cabral. Suggest also removing the link to the war of independence in the Legacy section.

:* Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• The text seems clear and neutral.
• Add the second comma in "As one of the first women in the PAIGC, she quickly became a popular leading figure in the revolutionary movement and was often praised by its leader, Amílcar Cabral".

:* Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
• The infobox image seems appropriate and relevant but is of poor quality. Is there a better one available?

:* Uploaded a better-quality version of the same image. It's in the public domain in Guinea-Bissau, as over 50 years have passed since its creation and the death of its subject. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• The images have appropriate CC tags.
• Spotchecks confirm the sources.
• There are two very similar items by Urdang listed. Can you please explain.

:* One (1975) is a short journal article, the other (1979) is a book. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• The list of Further reading lists Carmen Pereira's entry in rhe Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. Is this right?

:* This is right, as it talks about Silá in the context of Pereira. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

{{ping|Grnrchst}} Thank you for your work on this article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|simongraham}} Ok, I've responded to your comments. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

::{{u|Grnrchst}} Excellent work. I will start my review now. simongraham (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.
2. :the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;{{GAList/check|y}}
3. :it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.{{GAList/check|y}}
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;{{GAList/check|y}}
6. :all inline citations are from reliable sources;{{GAList/check|y}}
7. :it contains no original research;{{GAList/check|y}}
8. :it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;{{GAList/check|y}}
9. It is broad in its coverage
10. :it addresses the main aspects of the topic.{{GAList/check|y}}
11. :it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).{{GAList/check|y}}
12. It has a neutral point of view.
13. :it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.{{GAList/check|y}}
14. It is stable.
15. :it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.{{GAList/check|y}}
16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
17. :images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;{{GAList/check|y}}
18. :images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.{{GAList/check|y}}

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

{{GAList/check|y}} Pass simongraham (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

{{abot}}