Jump to content

Talk:Portland Monthly/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Check 1

[edit]

I am checking that the article meets a few basic things listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles before I do an in depth review:

  • The article has sources.
  • The article is not clearly POV
  • The article has no cleanup banners .
  • The article doesn't seem to be the subject of any major ongoing edit wars
  • The article doesn't specifically concern a rapidly unfolding current event without a definite endpoint Anonymous101 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these positive comments in this initial Check 1. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check 2

[edit]

Issues:

Comments:

Response to Check 2
  1. I broke the intro/lead into 2 paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please see WP:LEAD. The intro/lead is a summary of the rest of the article, and as everything in that lead is sourced later in the article (as you noted above) to WP:RS/WP:V sources, no need to have duplicate citations in the lead. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the course of my research I have not found WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that delve into detail about any particular articles by the Portland Monthly. What you see in the article itself at the time being is the result of research and searches through multiple database archives, and the WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources present already in the article is what I was able to come up with. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regarding a section on the website - See my prior point, I would love to have more info on this but there is not much else out there in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regarding the GA article The Wall Street Journal, you are correct it is pretty poorly referenced and probably shouldn't even be a GA anymore. Not really the best model to use, IMO - but even so as I stated above even if it were to be used as a model for something, not much other info out there in secondary sources to draw from. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. You make valid points and I see no reason no to pass the review. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check 3

[edit]

Although I wish the article was longer, I reaslise that is impossible with the current lack of WP:RS available on The Portland Monthly. GA Review passed. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]