Talk:The CIA and September 11/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

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

I am conducting a reassessment of this article as part of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|GA sweeps process]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
    •  
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
    •  
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
    •  
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
    •  
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
    •  

No obvious problems checking against GA criteria, proceed to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):  
    b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
    • Stable
  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:  
    Ok, all sorted now. Keep GA Status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Reference added. It was from the Spiegel article being discussed in the paragraphs above and below - I'd hoped it was fairly obvious it was all coming from the same source, but of course in retrospect it looks a bit like a randomly inserted, uncited paragraph. TheGrappler (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply