Talk:Elena Gorolová/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Grumpylawnchair (talk · contribs) 22:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: FishLoveHam (talk · contribs) 20:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Will begin reviewing soon. :) FishLoveHam (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

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.	Biography: Remove the redlink on "Vítkovice Steel" reword "he eventually came around" remove the comma after "it is shameful among the Roma to be sterilized". Career: Begin with "Gorolová" rather than "She". "ability of still becoming" → "ability to still become" "sometime" → "sometimes" "practicing" → "practising" Personal life: "She works" → "Gorolová works"
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Good.
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.	Good.
	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).	Good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Her birth date is unsourced (not mentioned in article body and isn't cited in infobox or lead).
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Passes on Earwig's Copyvio detector with only 15.3%
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'll admit I've never heard of this woman, but a quick google search showed nothing major was omitted from the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I feel like the lead could maybe be expanded just a little, possibly mentioning more of her activism?
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No editorial bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars to be found.
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.	Only file used is accurately tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Only file is relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing!

Should be a pretty quick pass, very well done. I'll perform a spot check. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt review! To address your concerns:

Criteria 1a:

• Concern 1: That is not a redlink, but is an {{Interlanguage link}} to the Czech article on the topic since we don't have an article on that.
• Concern 2: Done
• Concern 3: Done
• Concern 4: Done
• Concern 5: Done
• Concern 6: Done
• Concern 7: Done
• Concern 8: Done

Criteria 2c: Done, now cited in lead

Criteria 3b: Added a sentence about her recognition
@FishLoveHam: Courtesy ping

Spot check

• [1] Y
• [5] Y
• [9] Y
• [13] Y
• [17] Y
• [21] Y
• [25] Y

No issues in this spot-check. Bravo! FishLoveHam (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.