Wikipedia

Talk:Brilyn Hollyhand/GA1

< Talk:Brilyn Hollyhand
Latest comment: 5 months ago by CookieMonster755 in topic GA review

GA review

edit
Latest comment: 5 months ago103 comments2 people in discussion

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 23:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 12:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply


Initialization

edit

Comment: Hello ElijahPepe, thank you for nominating Brilyn Hollyhand for good article status. I will assess this article to determine whether it meets the six GA criteria and if so will pass it. If any changes or improvement need to be made to the article to meet GA criteria, I will write them below. I will do my best to finish the review in a timely manner, but with New Year's Eve and New Year's Day coming up, it might take extra time. It should be completed within two weeks. I have made some edits to the article; however, I believe they are not significant contributions and therefore I believe I am still qualified to review the article. If you have questions, please feel free to ping me here or write on my talk page. Best regards, cookiemonster755 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)#Reply
Comment: Hello ElijahPepe, I have finished the review. I do think the article is mostly in good shape. I think it does need some work and I have left comments below what I think should be improved. Once the article has been finished with improvements, it will be ready to go to become a good article. I will put the nomination on hold for 7 days (unless you notify me asking for more time) before a final decision is made. I apologise for writing so much, but I like to go into detailed review to make sure all articles are acceptable for good article status. If you feel like I have not done a proper job, please feel free to let me know or you may also seek a second opinion. Thank you for your hard work and dedication to Wikipedia. I look forward to your response. cookiemonster755 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@CookieMonster755: I have finished my changes. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:01, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@ElijahPepe: I read through the article again and through your comments. It looks good and I will be wrapping up the review and promoting the article to good status. Congratulations. My apologies if I may have been too nit picky, you did make good points and I am glad we could work together to bring high quality articles to the site. cookiemonster755 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) 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.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ↑ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ↑ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ↑ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ↑ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ↑ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ↑ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review details

edit

Review overview

edit
  1. Well-written:
    2. CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (prose)The article is overall mostly good when it comes to prose. However, there are a few issues to fix in the article, including lead summary (MOS:LEAD), sentence structure and word phrasing. Please see § detailed analysis for more details. I will put this on hold until it is addressed. cookiemonster755 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC) The article has a good prose, is easy to understand, and has correct grammar and spelling. cookiemonster755 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
    (b) (MoS)The article complies with the Manual of Style guidelines. cookiemonster755 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (references)This article has references that conforms to the layout style guideline. However, there are some minor issues with reference information, such as incorrect dates or publication names in article titles. I will put this criteria on hold until it is addressed. cookiemonster755 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC) The article has high-quality sources that presented according to Wikipedia guidelines. cookiemonster755 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources)Overall all citations are to reliable, quality sources. There are a few issues that include citations that do not fully support the content in the article. Please see § detailed analysis for my further comments on how to fix this. I will put this criteria on hold until it is addressed. cookiemonster755 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC) All reliable sources use appropriate inline citations to support the content in the article. cookiemonster755 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
    (c) (original research)I have read the article and see no original research. cookiemonster755 (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism)I have checked for copyright violations and found none in the article. cookiemonster755 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (major aspects)The article covers the subject appropriately in all major aspects. cookiemonster755 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
    (b) (focused)The article is focused and stays on topic. cookiemonster755 (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. NotesResult
    The article is neutral and represents viewpoints fairly without bias.Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. CommentResult
    There was some content removal and a violation of biographies of living persons policy in October, which seems to have been resolved. I will be double checking to make sure the article is neutral, fair, and reliably sourced per above criteria. Since there has been no significant changes or edit waring since then, the article passes this criteria. cookiemonster755 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)ReplyPass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. CriteriaNotesResult
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)Not applicable; no images are present in the article. cookiemonster755 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply Neutral Neutral
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)Not applicable; no images are present in the article. cookiemonster755 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)ReplyNeutral Neutral

Detailed analysis

edit

This section is for detailed analysis of each paragraph against the six GA criteria. Comments regarding suggestions and improvements will be detailed here.

Result and closing comments

edit
Result
edit
ResultNotes
Pass PassThe article is in mostly good shape and a few edits to citations, rewording and phrasing of some sentences, and other fixes detailed above will elevate the article to good article status. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to me. cookiemonster755 (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC) The article meets all criteria to be a good article. I have reviewed the comments by the nominator and implemented changes and I am satisfied with the feedback, changes and overall article presentation. cookiemonster755 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Closing comments
edit

It was a pleasure working with ElijahPepe and I look forward to doing more GA reviews in the future. cookiemonster755 (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brilyn_Hollyhand/GA1&oldid=1330659925"