GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ...comments? ~ B F izz 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I plan to gradually review this article, devoting around 20 minutes a day until I am thoroughly satisfied with the review. I will post thoughts and portions of my review incrementally every few days. I expect this will take somewhere between 2 to 4 weeks, during which time I encourage the continued improvement of the article (but no super-big changes, please). ...comments? ~ B F izz 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I will obviously conduct a much more thorough review over time, but after my first read I have the following thoughts regarding the GA criteria.
Overall, things are looking good for this article so far. Remember, this is not my complete review, but is simply a quick check for any glaring problems (there were none). More in-depth review to come soon! Feel free to comment, and especially feel free to let me know if you've addressed any issues that I bring up. ...comments? ~ B F izz 19:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep.
Looks good.
Mostly good. A few non-mandatory suggestions:
This article does not cover a fictional topic. (guideline not applicable)
No lists incorporated. Looks good.
The layout for "Notes" and "Works Cited" is good. The use of citation templates in these sections also looks good. ...comments? ~ B F izz 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Overall, I am satisfied that the sources do support the material. I've spot checked several Privileged Character references, and a few others. I have one suggestion:
This does not apply to the New York World article section, where it is obvious which source is referred to. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I am satisfied that this article is solidly based on statements from reliable sources. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is mostly good. There is one thing I noticed that I think should be in the article:
...comments? ~ B F izz 03:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the information is presented in a very neutral way. Well done. CMguy's responsiveness to my previous assessment of words to avoid has removed the small points of concern that arose in my preliminary review.
No problems here. ...comments? ~ B F izz 00:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
All look great.
✓ Pass
Although I have left a few very recent suggestions which have not yet been implemented, I consider them to be minor, and have no hesitation in granting Good Article status whether or not they are addressed.
A few final suggestions for further improvement of this Good Article:
...comments? ~ B F izz 03:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: ...comments? ~ B F izz 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I plan to gradually review this article, devoting around 20 minutes a day until I am thoroughly satisfied with the review. I will post thoughts and portions of my review incrementally every few days. I expect this will take somewhere between 2 to 4 weeks, during which time I encourage the continued improvement of the article (but no super-big changes, please). ...comments? ~ B F izz 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I will obviously conduct a much more thorough review over time, but after my first read I have the following thoughts regarding the GA criteria.
Overall, things are looking good for this article so far. Remember, this is not my complete review, but is simply a quick check for any glaring problems (there were none). More in-depth review to come soon! Feel free to comment, and especially feel free to let me know if you've addressed any issues that I bring up. ...comments? ~ B F izz 19:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep.
Looks good.
Mostly good. A few non-mandatory suggestions:
This article does not cover a fictional topic. (guideline not applicable)
No lists incorporated. Looks good.
The layout for "Notes" and "Works Cited" is good. The use of citation templates in these sections also looks good. ...comments? ~ B F izz 23:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Overall, I am satisfied that the sources do support the material. I've spot checked several Privileged Character references, and a few others. I have one suggestion:
This does not apply to the New York World article section, where it is obvious which source is referred to. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I am satisfied that this article is solidly based on statements from reliable sources. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This is mostly good. There is one thing I noticed that I think should be in the article:
...comments? ~ B F izz 03:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the information is presented in a very neutral way. Well done. CMguy's responsiveness to my previous assessment of words to avoid has removed the small points of concern that arose in my preliminary review.
No problems here. ...comments? ~ B F izz 00:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
All look great.
✓ Pass
Although I have left a few very recent suggestions which have not yet been implemented, I consider them to be minor, and have no hesitation in granting Good Article status whether or not they are addressed.
A few final suggestions for further improvement of this Good Article:
...comments? ~ B F izz 03:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)