Talk:Susanna Hoffs/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 23:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Theepicosity (talk · contribs) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This is a really good article! Very thorough, very well written, with a nice encyclopedic tone throughout. The sources are very impressive, it seems like a lot of care was taken, which is good for a biography of a living person. Very nice! :D

1. Is it well written?

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The discography and filmography section is consistent with others on Wikipedia, which I like. The lead section gives a nice summary of her notable songs and a brief history of her film roles, including her first and other important ones. It seems pretty well organized to me, I especially like how her most notable work is at the top and her following works go into lower paragraphs in the lead. I think the prose in general (but especially the lead) could be shortened down in some sections, but that would be a future improvement if it was going for featured article status ;p

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   a. (reference section):

   b. (inline citations to reliable sources):

   Inline citations are frequent, there is a nice variety of media sources, and they seem to be written by quite reputable people. Very impressive!

   c. (OR):

   The inclusion of quotations is super nice, it really enhances the credibility and the general reading experience!

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   e. (source spot-check):

   The sources look good, and match up with the quotes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. (major aspects):

   There is lots of extra details, but they are not necessarily out of scope. The lead gives a good overview of what is included in the scope. I do appreciate that there is coverage on her solo career as well as her involvement in the Bangles, it makes the article a bit more cohesive.

   b. (focused):

   The article is on the larger side, but once again, this is not bad.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article does a very good job of maintaining neutrality throughout!

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   I checked all the images, it looks like they all have correct licensing, so we are all good in that regard!

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Very good use of media all around! One edit I might recommend is to find a different picture to replace the image captioned "Hoffs in 2008," as it doesn't seem particularly relevant to that section. But this is pedantic- the image itself looks good, which is good enough for good article status!

7. Overall:

   Pass, fail or on hold: