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

Nominator: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 21:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 18:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Despite its size, the article appears to be adequate at covering the issue (systemic bias likely reducing the pool of sources and material). The minor copy changes needed do not rise to needing a hold, so I did them, and I'm going to approve this straight up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.

• I did some minor copyediting, mostly WP:CINS annoyances and a typo.

Reviewed: 2, 6, 10

No issues.

The photos are all libre licensed and have alt text. I don't think the alt text "Abandoned building porn" is exactly useful on the Ducor image, but that's not a GA issue.