Talk:Thurgood Marshall/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vocem Virtutis (talk · contribs) 06:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Heya! Thanks for nominating and working on this article; I think it will be a neat review to take. Let's see what needs to be done! Vocem Virtutis (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria

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):

   Generally, I'll fix smaller grammatical errors on my own as I review; if there are larger issues with grammar throughout a page, I'll elaborate below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   This is the most time-consuming part of the review, at least generally speaking. Most likely, this will be the last bit of the review I finish.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'll try and point out any issues I see in this section pretty quickly; after all, issues here can affect the entire article if not acknowledged quickly.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I hope I don't need to explain why this is important. I'll list any issues I see here ASAP.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Not usually an issue, but if it is, this'll sink the nomination pretty quickly.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Another criterion I'll typically try and check early in the review.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: