Talk:White House FBI files controversy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ~ Don4of4 ^[Talk] 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	This section has one issue: I would like to see an element in the lead section of the article. After all, this is the first thing the reader see's.	On hold

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Excellent list of references.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
No issues here.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Much improved.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	This article qualifies for WP:GA status! However, I would like to see an infobox in the future for "U.S. Political Conspiracies."

Discussion

Thanks very much for the review. Regarding the "wall of text" and lack of images, I have now added five images to the article, which I think illustrate the different aspects of the matter. I've also blockquoted the central Independent Counsel conclusion to the matter. Regarding a "See also" section, it is not required and I do not see the need for one here; WP:ALSO says that "Indeed, a good article might not require a 'See also' section at all." However, if there specific links that you think should go in such a section, let me know and I can create one. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• It looks MUCH better. My only concern is the lead section. Tell me what you think. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 18:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• The problem is, I don't know what could be put in the lead section. Looking at the articles in Category:Political scandals in the United States, there does not seem to be any specific infobox for political scandals, and very few of those articles have an infobox of any kind. And there's no one particular image that can serve for this article as a whole ... there's no WP-usable image of Craig Livingstone and no available image of what an FBI background report looks like. To move any of the images that I did add to the article body up to the top would overweight that aspect. So I'm not sure what can be done here, until someone creates Template:Infobox political scandal. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm... Ok, I put a placeholder where an infobox should ideally go and I'll look into adding it at a later time. Thanks for you great work! Don4of4 ^[Talk] 23:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)