Talk:Simone Giertz/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: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 00:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I could not resist reviewing an article for a topic that shares the same initials as my username. I will review it in line with the Good Article criteria shortly. simongraham (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• First, some general comments
• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of reasonable length, with 4,420 words of readable prose.
• The lead is appropriately long at 364 words.
• Authorship is 87.9% from the nominator with contributions from 82 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.
• There are some duplicate links, including "fear of failure" and Wired.
  • Removed duplicate links. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• GPTZero reports that it is highly confident this text is entirely human.

Criteria

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Some sentences do not feel encyclopedic, including "Giertz focused on doing well in school, contributing to a fear of failure."
     • Rephrased this sentence. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
   • The commas in "She created her YouTube channel in 2013, and created her first robot video" and "she created a Patreon account to receive money directly from viewers, while announcing a deal with GoldieBlox" are superfluous.
     • Fixed.
   • Please reword "Giertz presented her robots during appearances including The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and a TED talk." and "Giertz showcased three of her robots on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert in late 2016. Her appearance included using the lipstick robot on Colbert."
     • Done.
   • I believe the pronoun should be in the dependent clause, as in "As she shifted away from her "shitty robots", Giertz began designing products."
     • Done.
   • Remove "being" from "having previously being made primarily by Giertz herself"
     • Fixed.
   • Reword "By the end of 2019, Giertz was in talks with a production company to make a series about her going to space; she hoped to be the first to create a show from space. She decided to cancel the production as she felt she was not as passionate about it as she had expected."
     • Reworded.
   • Reword "Barounis writes that that the robots are subversive of the expectations of assistive technology, as they require Giertz to put work into something that does not help, as well as symbolic of disability, as they are celebrated despite their inability to perform action".
     • Made slightly shorter.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • Please review the tenses used against MOS:TENSE.
     • Fixed.
   • Confirm compliance with MOS:VULGAR.
     • I think the article complies with MOS:VULGAR. I use the phrase "shitty robots", which functions like a proper noun throughout the article. As this is the specific term that Giertz used for this specific series of projects, the direct quote, with the vulgarity, is relevant. (The direct quote with the word "fuck" is also relevant as it's quoted in RSes.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
       • That seems compliant to me. simongraham (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
   • It otherwise seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources are mainly online articles by reputable publishers.
   • Please provide evidence that Nerdist is reputable.
     • Per the consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.
   • Spot checks:
     • 1t confirmed.
     • 1ab confirmed.
     • 1au is fair, but I suggest rewording to remove the "As of 2019".
     • 8 states "another woman" rather than "a friend".
       • I thought there was a source saying it was a friend, but now I can't find it. Rephrased. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
     • 13e confirmed.
     • 16 confirmed.
     • 35 is a broken link.
     • 46c confirmed.
     • 48a confirmed.
     • 49b confirmed.
     • 57e and 60 state that the conversion required the "complete teardown of the car's interior, including door panels and gaskets" and to "strip out the Tesla’s backseat and trunk".
       • I believe I adequately summarized this in the sentence They cut through the back of the car, removing the seats, roof, doors, windows, and gaskets. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
         • I do not know the structure of the Tesla sufficiently to dispute this. simongraham (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
     • 68a confirmed.
     • 74 confirmed.
     • 80 confirmed.
     • 82 confirmed.
     • 92b confirmed.
     • 106 confirmed.
     • 112 confirmed.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 42.9% chance of copyright violation. The largest overlap is from direct quotes in the article in The Verge and Mashable.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article covers all relevant aspects.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article goes into a lot of detail but is generally compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have appropriate CC or PD tags. One of them is tagged as in the public domain because it is a selfie taken by a dog.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The images are appropriate.

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Simongraham: I think I got everything. Thanks for the review! — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Thank you for your responses. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2026 (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.