Talk:Keyshia Cole/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Finesse2Starz (talk · contribs) 16:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ali Beary (talk · contribs) 13:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article when I have time. Ali Beary _(talk!) 13:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	FN51 following the first sentence of the paragraph starting with Aside from her music success... is IMDB, which is unreliable as per WP:RS. Please find a new citation for this. FN96, FN102, FN192 and FN196 use YouTube, which is generally considered unreliable. For this specific topic, it might be okay, but you'd need to give me a valid reason or two why you believe it's okay. (Or just remove and add new sources for these, if that's easier!)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked using WP:EARWIG and I believe it looks good.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Mentions both good and bad things she did. Doesn't appear to be biased.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Basically every recent edit is from the reviewer. No edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes, but would it be possible to find and add more images? I feel like two isn't enough, but I could be wrong.
	7. Overall assessment.

Please add Done or Not done to my comments as you finish them. Use Done if you agree with me and believe you have fixed it, and Not done if you don't agree with me and can provide a reason why. Thanks! Ali Beary _(talk!) 13:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eisspeedway

GA review