Jump to content

Talk:Juliana Force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleJuliana Force was one of the Art and architecture good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 6, 2021Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 23, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Juliana R. Force brought about the first public showing of American folk art in the United States?
Current status: Delisted good article


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Juliana R. Force/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) 00:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    • "because of her passion for folk art, this initial display led to the first official public exhibition of folk art in a public showing presentation." Please forgive me, but I am unclear what "presentation" means in this context.
    •  Done Changed to - Because of her passion for folk art, this initial display led to the first official public exhibition of folk art in a demonstration.
    • @Aussie Article Writer: Will that work? --Doug Coldwell (talk)
  1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    The following is referenced by a few citations, but when I checked the link, it takes me to an article about Annie Oakley? Are you sure this is the right page? The citation is: James, Edward (1971). Notable American Women, 1607–1950: A Biographical Dictionary. Harvard University Press. p. 645. ISBN 978-0-674-62734-5. W - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured out what the situation was. The biography has numerous volumes, the one being linked to was wrong and needed to be changed to Volume 1. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig shows no issues.
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Except for the one referencing issue and a question on one sentence, this is a great nomination for GA! Well done on your hard work. Please clarify the sentence and correct the reference, after which I will check it, if that's good then I am happy to pass. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    excellent, this passes GA! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment

[edit]

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]