Jump to content

Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
    I hope you don't mind I did some copy edits to simplify the language in a couple of spots.
    B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead is a bit short compared to the size of the article and does not cover all the main points. Material could be drawn from the content summary and the impact section Green tickY
    A. Provides references to all sources:
    Material is sourced, citations are uniformly formatted using citation templates. No technical errors were found. Checklinks and Reflinks found no problems
    B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    Cited sources are high quality news sources and journal articles. Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing
    C. No original research:
    All opinions expressed are those of the cited sources; no OR found
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Main aspects are addressed:
    All main points for books are covered (author, summary of contents, style/genre [covered by the reviews], impact, pub. history, reception)
    B. Remains focused:
  3. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  5. 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:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I have placed the article on hold for a week to address the one issue: the lead needs to be beefed up a bit as it does not presently cover all the main points addressed in the article. Very nice job Cirt, an interesting and informative article. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Diannaa for doing the review, I will respond to this soon and note it back here. — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Diannaa I've expanded the lede/intro sect per your recommendation, above, perhaps you could have another look? — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's great. Thanks for responding so quickly. The article has now passed to GA class. Good job -- Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]