Talk:Stephen Miller/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 06:55, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SusanLesch (talk · contribs) 20:05, 22 October 2025 (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 (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig finds possible copyright problems with Ms. Guerrero’s book (69.9%). Because it is one of two Stephen Miller biographies that I know of in existence, this might go away. -SGL

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pending -SGL