Talk:Washington Park Subdivision/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Initial review by Drilnoth (talk · contribs)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose needs a good copyedit... I made a few changes, but quite a bit of it is just kind of unclear or the sentence structure is awkward. I'd recommend either going through it line-by-line or making a request at WP:GOCE.

   I just did a once over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I'm concerned about the reliability of [1]. It looks like an encyclopedia... a tertiary source, and generally discouraged. If you can find better citations for those points, that would be great.  Done

   The Encyclopedia of Chicago is an extremely well-accepted source here on WP. Prairie Avenue and South Side (Chicago) both rely heavily on it. I have dozens of GAs that rely on it. It has never even been questioned before. Instead of having a few authors and editors each article is compiled by the specialist on that topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   Okay; sounds good. I just hadn't heard of it before and it had "Encyclopedia" in the name, so I just wondered about reliability. Anyway, consider this resolved. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   It seems focused mostly on pre 1948. Washington Park has history 1948 to now. The 60s produced notable activists and leaders through churches and TWO (which is where I had contact). Maybe the title could have added "the Early Years" or similar to accurately describe the scope of the article. I'd love to see a follow on article that describes it when I've known it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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:

   I'm putting this review on hold for seven days for copyediting. Overall, I found the article to be nicely written and comprehensive, with good sourcing.

   I'm passing this now; the copyedit resolved most of my concerns. Good work, and I hope all goes well on the Good topic! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)