This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 16, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Temple Beth Israel in
Eugene, Oregon was attacked by
neo-Nazi members of the
Volksfront in 1994 and 2002? |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have bumped this up to C class. It needs a little work to get to B, mainly some more history from founding until the 1990s would be good. Then, what about the building, other than LEED and the square footage? How tall/stories, color, style, etc. Also, generally you do not want one paragraph sections, and it would be great if the fuzzy issues (founding date and square footage) could be nailed down. Nice work getting the article this far. Aboutmovies ( talk) 05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the ideas for change, but an article lede should merely summarize material in the article, it shouldn't introduce any new information. That's why the lede also has only citations used elsewhere in the article. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: – Quadell ( talk) 13:45, 8 July 2011 (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. | Prose is generally excellent. Clear and easy to read. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead is excellent, the article is well organized into sections, the use of an infobox is appropriate. All MoS guidelines appear to be followed to a T. (It's almost as if you've written this kind of article before!) |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Sources are well-formatted and extremely well organized. |
![]() |
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). | The sources are great: thorough and comprehensive. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems found. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All major questions answered. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems with rambling or diversions. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems found. Where there is disagreement, footnotes show all viewpoints thoroughly. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not an issue at this time. |
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. | Sadly, there are no free images available at this time. However, multiple attempts are currently open, and images will probably be available in the future. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | See above. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Informative and well-organized, meets all requirements. |
And thank you for reviewing the article and the improvements you made! Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I found a few sources which might help expand the article:
— EncMstr ( talk) 23:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Temple Beth Israel (Eugene, Oregon) has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
September 16, 2008. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that
Temple Beth Israel in
Eugene, Oregon was attacked by
neo-Nazi members of the
Volksfront in 1994 and 2002? |
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have bumped this up to C class. It needs a little work to get to B, mainly some more history from founding until the 1990s would be good. Then, what about the building, other than LEED and the square footage? How tall/stories, color, style, etc. Also, generally you do not want one paragraph sections, and it would be great if the fuzzy issues (founding date and square footage) could be nailed down. Nice work getting the article this far. Aboutmovies ( talk) 05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the ideas for change, but an article lede should merely summarize material in the article, it shouldn't introduce any new information. That's why the lede also has only citations used elsewhere in the article. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: – Quadell ( talk) 13:45, 8 July 2011 (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. | Prose is generally excellent. Clear and easy to read. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead is excellent, the article is well organized into sections, the use of an infobox is appropriate. All MoS guidelines appear to be followed to a T. (It's almost as if you've written this kind of article before!) |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Sources are well-formatted and extremely well organized. |
![]() |
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). | The sources are great: thorough and comprehensive. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems found. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All major questions answered. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems with rambling or diversions. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems found. Where there is disagreement, footnotes show all viewpoints thoroughly. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Not an issue at this time. |
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. | Sadly, there are no free images available at this time. However, multiple attempts are currently open, and images will probably be available in the future. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | See above. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Informative and well-organized, meets all requirements. |
And thank you for reviewing the article and the improvements you made! Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I found a few sources which might help expand the article:
— EncMstr ( talk) 23:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)