Talk:Tammy Wynette/GA1

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

Reviewer: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) 00:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Very good work as usual. I did some copy editing here and there to make things flow a bit better. I also removed a couple quotes that I didn't think were necessary.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   You're getting better about making sure that terms are only linked the first time they appear. I fixed a few questionable comma usages.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   All of the sources used appeared to be reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   I would recommend adding alt text to images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: