Talk:Mary Paxton Keeley

Mary Paxton Keeley is currently a Magazines and print journalism good article nominee. Nominated by Sammielh (talk) at 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: American journalist (1886–1986)

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

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Paxton Keeley/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammielh (talk · contribs) 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reppop (talk · contribs) 01:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will be doing this review. This article has been on my radar for a while now as I was using it for an informal practice of GA reviewing, so I though it would be time to do an actual review. I plan to do some of it today and the rest throughout the week. Forgive me for any hiccups. reppop^talk 01:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will be taking a break from this to rest, will get back to this tomorrow. reppop^talk 05:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Don't see any issues with MoS; lead and body sections look good, don't see any words to watch (that isn't a quote), fiction and list incorporation not in article.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed by order of appearance, sources are listed by order of surnames, both with appropriate information given.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig copyvio check turns up with no copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article addresses main topics as dictated by the headers (and somewhat by the lead as well).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Maintains summary style throughout the article.
	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.	Hasn't been edited since May 10, mostly been edited by nominator.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Some of the images' licenses are a little dubious, as they have a {{PD-because}} "SHSMO says there are no known copyright restrictions" but some have varying copyright descriptions, including in copyright with the rights-holder unlocatable and copyright undetermined. Specifically these ones: File:Senior Journalists 1910.jpg ("In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable") File:Editor's Week 1910.jpg ("In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable") File:Keeley in France.jpg ("In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable") File:Mary and John Keeley.jpg ("In Copyright - Rights-holder(s) Unlocatable or Unidentifiable") File:Christian College.jpg ("Copyright undetermined") File:Mary Paxton Keeley House.jpg ("Copyright undetermined") I would suggest finding out if they're published and changing the licenses to other specific licenses. I can definitely help with this if you need.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images seem to be relevant to both the topic and their sections.
	7. Overall assessment.