Talk:Fences and Windows/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by ImperatorExercitus in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As this is my first GA review, feel free to comment/ask me questions! Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
GA Philosophy edit
As with most GA Reviewers, I tend to break each individual section down to compose the overall article's quality. This way, you will be able to edit specifically the parts where I feel there are problems. Imperat§ r(Talk) 15:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
GA Checklist edit
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Overall, it's not too bad, but has too many mistakes I mentioned below.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Decent Neutrality
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- None that I can see! :)
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Overall decent article with just a few minor mistakes mentioned below. Good job!
- Pass or Fail:
Article Review edit
Lead edit
- "Reviews of the book were mixed, some positive and others negative."
- If the review is mixed, then of course it's going to have both positive and negative...
- I see plenty of opportunity for Wikilinks on the second paragraph.
- Two of the articles were singled out by several reviewers as being the exceptional. One, "America is not a Hamburger", discusses the US State Department's attempt to re-brand America's image overseas. The second, "The Brutal Calculus of Suffering", discusses media portrayals of war.
- Should be moved to the Publication and reception section
- The fences represent exclusion and barriers while the windows are opportunities for expressing alternative ideas.
- Again, too specific; move down to one of the sections below.
Background edit
- (m) wrong verb tense which is confusing.
Content edit
Styles and Themes edit
- Should be expanded.
- Link; I don't see a single Wikilink
Publication and Reception edit
- Two chapters were singled out as being exceptionally well-done: Los Angeles Times article "America is not a Hamburger" describing the US State Department's attempt to re-brand the USA rather than describing the US State Department's belief that rising anti-Americanism was a misunderstanding rather than a reaction to American policy directions, and Klein's October 2001 speech at a journalism conference in Stockholm, "The Brutal Calculus of Suffering" contrasting the media depictions of American versus non-American deaths.
- Reword and split up.
- Eliminate the two red links
- Several opportunities for Linkage within the first two paragraphs (Optional)
References edit
- Overall, references are pretty good.
- Try to eliminate the red links.
General references should be merged somehow.corrected
- Like the clarity and abundancy.
- Most of the references seem to be clear and accurate.
- Try to eliminate the red links.
External Links edit
*Meh...should be merged with references.
When merging, try to be a bit more specific.
- Actually, they appear fine.