Talk:Hillel Day School/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Sorry for the long wait Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Yamfri: I notice you haven't edited since 7 July of this year. Could you confirm that you are still around and able to respond to suggestions during the GA review; say, in the next week? Thank you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I will respond within 7-10 days. Thank you! Yamfri (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok! I'll start reviewing the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a quickfail (see WP:QF). The primary issue leading to the quickfail are the examples of copyright violations given below, but the article also has a severe structural issue in its almost exclusive on a single source, therefore making it a long way off from meeting GA criteria #2.

Thank you for your hard work on this article. I recommend you give it a rework and consider the level of detail appropriate so that it does not have to rely so heavily on a single source. Make sure there are no copyright issues. Make sure it remains neutral and free of promotionalism and overdetail. Good luck with editing this and other articles, but I just can't pass it as it currently stands. —Ganesha811 (talk) 09:56, 1 October 2022 (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.	Occasional grammar mistakes, overuse of contractions - nothing too major.
	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.
	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 article relies *heavily* on the Detroit Jewish News; almost exclusively, in fact. Given this, the importance of establishing both the independence and the reliability of that source is paramount. Essentially, this is a topic only really regularly covered by a local newspaper of a particular community. While the Wiki article is relatively neutral, the tone of the actual newspaper articles I checked is not at all neutral, clearly supporting the school and its strong Jewish values/educational principles. That suggests a non-neutral source to me. This is a major problem for the article given its sourcing.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	At least 3 clear copyright violations found by Earwig (1, 2, 3)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See 3b, below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Unclear level of detail. History section is adequate, but more information on the founding of the school and its context in Detroit's Jewish community would be useful. Over-coverage of recent expansions and changes due to recentism.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.