Talk:Kimberly Anyadike

Kimberly Anyadike has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 17, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Aviation African diaspora This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Kimberly Anyadike/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning the GA review for Kimberly Anyadike. Codyorb (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (

   lists

   ):

   Prose is clear and well written, with appropriately sized paragraphs.a There are no obvious spelling or grammar errors. No apparent violations of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (

   reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism

   ):

   Reliable citations are used throughout the article. No plagiarism or original content found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article is comprehensive. It does not leave out any major details and does not go into unnecessary detail.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias found in the article

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are appropriately used and licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Codyorb (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review reopened

Per a discussion at Codyorb's talk page, this review is being reopened, and further work will include contributions from Mike Christie, who has agreed to give a second opinion on the state of the article, given that Codyorb is new at reviewing, and some issues came to light. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review by Mike Christie

The lead is too short; it should be a summary of the article. Currently it omits some significant information.

Other than that I think the article is ready for promotion to GA. A note for future reference: Earwig found this, but it appears that article was taken from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to expand the lead with information from the body of the article. Codyorb (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the lead section to 2 paragraphs. Codyorb (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Codyorb. I've modified it a bit; the most important facts about her relate to the flight, so I cut some of the biographical material you added and put in a bit more about the flight. This looks good enough now, so I am promoting the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]