Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 18, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
There are a number of unreferenced paragraphs and sentences. I have placed tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
Sources provided are are Ok, all some are bare urls and some newspaper stories are not properly cited, the date and pare should be there. I would suggest using the cite news tag. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
There are a large number of un-cited statements and it will likley take some time to source them so I am going to de-list. When it has been fixed up please bring back to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]