Talk:Congregation Beth Israel (New Orleans)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, and in the Recent events section, "As of 2010, the congregation was sharing space in Gates of Prayer's building", shouldn't it be ---> "As of 2010, the congregation has been sharing space in Gates of Prayer's building"? Same sections, if this ---> "The rabbi was Uri Topolsky" is part of the "As of 2010" sentence then it should be "The rabbi is Uri Topolsky". If not, then it's fine as it is. In the Hurricane Katrina and aftermath section, this sentence ---> "In the wake of Katrina another 50 member families left New Orleans and the congregation" reads very odd. In the Recent events section, "...in the summer Topolsky started a recruitment campaign, placing an advertisement in New York's The Jewish Week newspaper" ---> "...in the summer Topolsky started a recruitment campaign, placing an advertisement in the New York newspaper The Jewish Week", works better.

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, and in the History section, should this ---> "1903/1904" be formatted like that? In the Hurricane Katrina and aftermath section, it would be best if "Federal Emergency Management Agency" was followed by ---> (FEMA), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader. Same section, "Torah" and "siddurs" should be linked once.

   Half-check.

   Check.

2. 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:

   There appears to be a dead link.

   Check.

   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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

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

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. Responding to the issues you've raised:

• In the lead, and in the Recent events section, "As of 2010, the congregation was sharing space in Gates of Prayer's building", shouldn't it be ---> "As of 2010, the congregation has been sharing space in Gates of Prayer's building"? Same sections, if this ---> "The rabbi was Uri Topolsky" is part of the "As of 2010" sentence then it should be "The rabbi is Uri Topolsky". If not, then it's fine as it is.

Fixed.

Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• In the Hurricane Katrina and aftermath section, this sentence ---> "In the wake of Katrina another 50 member families left New Orleans and the congregation" reads very odd.

I've re-worded it in a way that I hope is more clear.

Yeah, it reads better, thanks for fixing it.

• In the Recent events section, "...in the summer Topolsky started a recruitment campaign, placing an advertisement in New York's The Jewish Week newspaper" ---> "...in the summer Topolsky started a recruitment campaign, placing an advertisement in the New York newspaper The Jewish Week", works better.

Changed, per your improved wording.

Check.

• In the lead, and in the History section, should this ---> "1903/1904" be formatted like that?

Fixed.

Check.

• In the Hurricane Katrina and aftermath section, it would be best if "Federal Emergency Management Agency" was followed by ---> (FEMA), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader.

Fixed.

Check.

• Same section, "Torah" and "siddurs" should be linked once.

Fixed, I believe.

"Torah" is still linked twice.

Oops! Fixed now.

Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that covers all of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

One minor thing. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've got it all now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You have, and thank you for being patient with this review. Anyways, thank you to Jayg for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)