Talk:Élizabeth Teissier/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 08:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I am concerned that there is so little coverage of Teissier's youth/early life.

The above still stands, that she is born and then is married all within a single sentence. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything available about her early life/childhood/time at university/etc? Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Ref #38 (to "Le Monde") is a dead link.
A link to a non-dead link from a notable organization is also provided, but it seemed like the main link should be to where it was. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any references about the Wikimedia lawsuit in English?
There's the Wikipedia blog, but that doesn't seem reliable. I don't think she's well-known enough in English-speaking countries to have been worth a report. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The lead image though "dated" relies on the subject's asserted date. Are there any other images that could possibly work?
I don't think it'd be possible readily, especially since we can't really go fair use when we have a free-licensed one, unless the image was shown to not be free-licensed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is somewhat funny - I found the image used as a cover illustration on Tessier's 2006 Astrology book, so her (assuming the Commons editor "Elizabethteissier" is the subject) date in the File is in error. Shearonink (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since the image's date is identified by the subject that will have to stand. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I need to do a few more read-throughs to check some things out. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still "On Hold" pending the *education claims & the *reference-styles. Shearonink (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am not passing this article to a WP:GA status at this time, in my opinion it does not fulfill 1A. 03:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

While not strictly a part of the GA requirements, the references are in two widely different styles. I would like to see them be consistent. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that the only source for one of the subject's university degrees is a statement from her in an interview, (Ref #2), also that she somehow received a Master before a Bachelor's, and that there is no record of where she received these asserted degrees from. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: I mislaid this Review for a while - apologies for the delay. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The asserted university-level education degrees should be sourced from something other than the subject's personal statements. Shearonink (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - I'm kinmda finding it hard to get time for Wikipedia myself just now. I had been begging for a review to start the last quarter of last year because I knew this was going to happen. I really hate GAN sometimes. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Just checking in. My major concerns at this point are still 1) the asserted/claimed collegiate degrees and 2)the inconsistent reference-styles. If those can be dealt with at some point I will then be able to finish up my Review. Shearonink (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts[edit]

In my opinion, because of various issues with

claims made by the subject about their levels of education
early life section that is truncated in its development - born & married all in one sentence

this article does not fulfill the GA Criteria at this time, specifically 1A. That references within a WP:GA agree in their form is not strictly part of the WP:GA Criteria but that aspect personally gives me pause in that it makes verification more difficult for our readers. I will be leaving this Review open for a day or two more and in any case will be posting my final Review later this week. If I do think a Fail is necessary I want it understood that I would be glad to review it again after Adam Cuerden or other interested editors can adjust and correct its various issues. I have enjoyed learning about this woman in the course of this Review. Shearonink (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]