Talk:Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy/GA1

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

Reviewer: Luxtaythe2nd (talk · contribs) 15:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good and well-sourced at first glance. Let the review begin! Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 15:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well-written:

   a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

   b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

This article fails the first two criteria—it fails 1a with inconsistent spelling, incredibly long paragraphs without any breaks, and the dialogue in the Death section being rather confusing. It fails 1b immediately as well; the templates at the article's beginning are sorted in violation of MOS:LEAD. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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. 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)

   c. it contains no original research

   d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

The sources in these articles are generally good, but the article automatically fails 2b because of the final statement in the Marriage section being unreferenced. Also, this isn't a rule, but the article also cites Hardy's 1908 work on her almost everywhere. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Broad in its coverage:

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

The article is often rambly, although it covers the important aspects of her life well. Not much else to comment on. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each
2. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
3. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

   a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   a. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

The images are very well-done and high quality and none of them violates any copyright laws; the article is subject to active editing, but not edit-warring; sadly, it has some bias in the later sections against the revolutionaries so it doesn't pass criteria 4. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number hashes look weird now. Anyway, @Dialuanny0, thank you for nominating this article. Sadly, it did not pass, and I invite you to fix the issues described in the review. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 16:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this could be considered a quickfail because of violations of the neutral point of view policy (see quickfail rule 3). Statements such as "it was a frequent slander that the two had been lovers" and puffery like "enormous", "mocked", and "propaganda" disqualify this in my opinion. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 18:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]