Talk:Rumsfeld Commission/GA1
Appearance
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Projects and major contributors have been notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
- Well written, I made some copy-edits to satisfy these requirements.
- a (prose): b (MoS):
#:: I feel that the lead should be expanded somewhat to fully summarise the article as per WP:LEAD
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
#:: One dead link (ref #21 [1]) has been tagged.
- One statement: North Korea launched their Taepodong-1, modeled on the Scud missile highlighted in the report, on August 31 in what they described as a satellite launch. However, US intelligence determined the attempt was a failure. needs a citation.
It would be helpful to have an EL to the actual report, which I assume is available on-line, this is not a GA requirement however.- I assume good faith for off-line sources.
- Other references check out and are WP:RS
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- OK
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
:On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)OK, just the lead to be addressed, as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)- OK, keep GA status, thanks for the hard work that has gone into this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive critique! I'm sorry not to have kept this more updated since it was created. So far I believe I addressed many of the major things you noted; over the coming days I'll see what more can be done (will add cite templates all around), and I'll try to get a hold of the main book source to see if I missed anything from first round. Joshdboz (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)