# Talk:Sharon Kinne

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sharon Kinne/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Prabash.A (talk · contribs) 03:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I will get to this review in a moment!  Prabash.Akmeemana  03:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


### Comments
Is it possible to get an image for this article? In this case it doesn't matter but just a thought.
The article is fleshed out enough so that part is fine for GA.
The references are reliable and the article meets WP:BLP criteria.  Prabash.Akmeemana  03:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


### Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The images are not necessary for this article.
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Same as above.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This looks like a decent pass!  Prabash.Akmeemana  20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Before I pass this one, see what you can do with the image if possible.  Prabash.Akmeemana  03:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
@Prabash.A: All photos of the parties involved in these cases are still within their copyright period, as far as I've been able to discover. I could dredge the bottom of the barrel and try to find photos of, say, the building the Kinnes were married in or something, but I don't think images like that really add much understanding to the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, Fluffernutter, that's fine then. But the building builds up another topic of interest, it would be fine in the article, but without the picture of the convict herself then the building picture will be quite misleading as to what the article is focusing on Thats my opinion though, as the first thing I usually see on the article is the image. So yeah I personally would call this article a decent pass! If anyone opposes my decision in passing it, feel free to reassess but I don't see any issues with it.  Prabash.Akmeemana  20:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)