Talk:Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC) This article will be reviewed shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
Reviewer notes: This article is not ready for GA status at this time. Too small an editing history in the last month to see giving a hold with this much work. If editors return and work is accomplished, please resubmit and notify reviewer.
- Lede does not reflect article content well and has repetitive wording.
- Section headers should not reflect the subject per MoS. "Writing the speech" - "Summery of speech" headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated. Other heading are longer than are needed.
- The article misses a major issue, what the speech is about. The "history", "Origin" or "Background" to provide a clear understanding of why the speech was made is missing and should be above all sections.
- There are 30 references in this article...but not a single reference or inline citation in the entire "Summary" section.
- The body of the article suffers from the same repetitive wording of the lede. Use of the same phrases read badly.
- The sections "Domestic response" and "International response" needs copy editing. They are basically lists of reviews separated as individual short paragraphs and require tightening and prose to add context.
- While the article has a few negative mentions, over all it does not read in a neutral manner. Comes across almost idealistic. This may be cleaned up with copy editing and further research.
Overall the prose is quite poor and a great deal of referencing is required. A change in tone to be more neutral and encyclopedic is also very much needed. The fact that the article skips the issue of background or origin concerns me a great deal. This, of course could be linked to the main article on the subject of the speech itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm surprised this article was nominated for GA. I was thinking about renominating for deletion in the future, once the recentism has worn off. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)