Talk:Public Relations Society of America/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

Looking through the history, archives and last nomination, I think that I must at least acknowledge the gorilla in the living room. Having spent only 30 minutes rather than 3 hours trying to absorb it, I still don't have a clear picture. But it appears that until a few months ago there was controversy over the amount and formatting/organization of coverage with respect to the situation between O'Dwyer and the organization. I noted that now there are a few sentences on this. Any thoughts on whether or not the current amount of coverage is correct.? My initial quick thought is that maybe another sentence or two giving background or overview on this might be in order. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did feel it got overly reduced. Someone claimed it was not NPOV because it sounds "catty" but this is the correct way to portray it based on reliable sources. The level of argument only occurred because of an editor that was hounding me and creating arguments on every article I have contributed to. I don't think it's actually an issue anyone is that passionate about. CorporateM (Talk) 14:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. You added a bit more. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Near the end there is the sentence "They found that recent college grads lacked writing skills and that teachers were inexperienced.". On the face of it this sounds like a finding for all college students and all college teachers. I assume that there are some fine points missing on this? North8000 (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think that fixed it. I rechecked the source; it sounds like they didn't "find out" college grads had poor writing skills, this was assumed as an obvious fact and the implication was that it was caused by poor teachers. CorporateM (Talk) 13:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Resolved. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria North8000 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. One nice expansion would be covering the "employee" side of the organization; i.e. in addition to the senior (volunteer) leadership which was covered, they have a a facility with employees.....maybe a paid manager / executive director that they report to. But there may not be sourcing for this, and either way, it's a sidebar item not affecting passage of this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. Has had at least 4 months of calm regarding this. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has two images; both are free so no article-specific rationale is required. North8000 (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Result

This passes as a Wikipedia good article. I left one possible expansion recommendation in the checklist. Nice article! Congratulations! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]