Jump to content

Talk:Northwest Airlines Flight 253/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Airplaneman 18:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    In the Al-Qaeda involvement section, first sentence: On December 28, 2009, Obama in his first address said the incident... - does it mean his first address related to the incident, or his first ever address, or something else (it's unclear at the moment)? I'm pretty sure it's the first option; please clarify. Airplaneman 21:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified, cited, changed the quote a bit per the source I used. fetch·comms 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are a number of dead links in the references, including references numbers 15, 70, 79, 87, 144, 145, 152, and 159. Please also see the checklinks results. Airplaneman 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All of them tagged, can't find any online archives of them yet. fetch·comms 02:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's fine. Please add working links when you can. Airplaneman 21:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The passage On April 6, 2010, it was reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki. is unreferenced in both the lead and al-Awlaki's section (last paragraph). Please provide a reference to (at least) the passage in the section. Airplaneman 21:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This passage is mentioned a third time in the "domestic response" section, this time with a ref. I'll add it to the other passage (not to the lead passage). Does it really need to be mentioned thrice? How about cutting it from the "domestic response" section? Airplaneman 22:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I didn't realize it was also in the domestic response section, or I would've removed it earlier (one of the biggest challenges for me before was removing redundant/duplicated info!). Removed now. I only referenced quotes in the lede, so I didn't add a citation there, hopefully that's fine. fetch·comms 01:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good! Airplaneman 02:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise, everything's in order. Airplaneman 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Very comprehensive. I don't think it's overly comprehensive, although FA reviewers may ask for you to trim some things (as in the first FA review). I don't have a problem with it; it's ~2,000 kb smaller than when the FA candidate was reviewed, and the detail provides a very full, detailed picture of what happened. Airplaneman 21:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Passes easily. Airplaneman 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Yup. Airplaneman 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Passing with flying colors :). Definitely GA status. For a possible second FAC, I would recommend addressing the unaddressed concerns (if any) from the first FA review. Congrats! Airplaneman 02:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was, uh, fast (not really complaining, though...) fetch·comms 02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

[edit]