Talk:Irene (play)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Criteria:

1. Well written: PASS
2. Factually accurate and verifiable: PASS
3. Broad in its coverage: PASS
4. Neutral: PASS
5. Stable;: PASS
6: Images: PASS

I suggest the lead be expanded ever so slightly and the article sent to FA. A good read, enjoyable and informative. Cannot be bettered! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am sure Lexo feels the same. I am definitely proud of some of the later work that Lexo put in to polish this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This GA review was conducted by an account subsequently discovered to be operated by a user that made use of multiple accounts. Importantly, there is nothing that supports a concern passing their own GAs or passing 'sub-GA' articles authored by others occurred. In the interest of transparency and rigor, discussion agreed reviews against the underlying articles be checked.

I've checked the article meets the criteria. The lead, perhaps, could be expanded to include Leavis's and Bate's view Johnson was a victim of his own (literary) success, in regard to Irene. I agree with the review's pass of the article and with its comments. The review and GA status should stand. –Whitehorse1 01:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]