![]() | Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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. Review: October 16, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 September 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Notecardforfree ( talk · contribs) 08:54, 13 October 2015 (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. | The article is generally well written. The prose is both clear and direct. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | Excellent job utilizing inline citations to substantiate factual assertions. |
![]() |
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). | No problems here. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No original research. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems here. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems with neutrality. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This article has been stable since August 29, 2015. |
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. | Images are not protected by copyright. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This is a well written article about a fascinating topic. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed before this article can pass this GA Review.
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. You are clearly a strong writer, and I am confident that with a little work, this can be an excellent article. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 08:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this article is getting closer, but there are still some issues that I think need to be resolved before this article can pass. Most of these issues have to do with the breadth requirement, but there are also some other, minor issues as well:
Again, I think you are on the right track and you have already made excellent improvements to this article. However, the topic of this article is rather complex and nuanced, and I think certain portions of this article need to be expanded so that readers can better understand both the real-world and theoretical significance of the doctrine. Indeed, there are still some "main aspects" that need elaboration. For example, this article should give readers an understanding of the ways in which the doctrine impacted foreign relations during the Jefferson administration (he was, after all, the one who formalized this doctrine). Please let me know if you have any questions about any of these comments. I look forward to seeing the finished product; I think that after this article is expanded, it will really be excellent. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society 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. Review: October 16, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Washington Doctrine of Unstable Alliances appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 September 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Notecardforfree ( talk · contribs) 08:54, 13 October 2015 (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. | The article is generally well written. The prose is both clear and direct. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | Excellent job utilizing inline citations to substantiate factual assertions. |
![]() |
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). | No problems here. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No original research. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | No problems here. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems with neutrality. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | This article has been stable since August 29, 2015. |
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. | Images are not protected by copyright. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
This is a well written article about a fascinating topic. However, there are a few issues that need to be addressed before this article can pass this GA Review.
Please let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. You are clearly a strong writer, and I am confident that with a little work, this can be an excellent article. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 08:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this article is getting closer, but there are still some issues that I think need to be resolved before this article can pass. Most of these issues have to do with the breadth requirement, but there are also some other, minor issues as well:
Again, I think you are on the right track and you have already made excellent improvements to this article. However, the topic of this article is rather complex and nuanced, and I think certain portions of this article need to be expanded so that readers can better understand both the real-world and theoretical significance of the doctrine. Indeed, there are still some "main aspects" that need elaboration. For example, this article should give readers an understanding of the ways in which the doctrine impacted foreign relations during the Jefferson administration (he was, after all, the one who formalized this doctrine). Please let me know if you have any questions about any of these comments. I look forward to seeing the finished product; I think that after this article is expanded, it will really be excellent. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)