Talk:Fences and Windows/GA1

GA Review

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

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:

   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:

   Decent Neutrality

5. 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! :)

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:

   Overall decent article with just a few minor mistakes mentioned below. Good job!

Article Review

Lead

• "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

• (m) wrong verb tense which is confusing.

Styles and Themes

• Should be expanded.
• Link; I don't see a single Wikilink

Publication and Reception

• 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

• 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.

External Links

*Meh...should be merged with references.

• • When merging, try to be a bit more specific.
• Actually, they appear fine.