Talk:First Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 18:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC) I shall have a look at this this weekend.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look forward to your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• All images are fine.
• Spoken version - could this be updated? It was last recorded in 2006.
• Could you cite the first paragraph of the obscenity section, as well as the "Son of Sam" law bit?

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure where to begin with re-recording a new audio version of the article; that's a part of Wikipedia I've never worked in before. Do you see this as an issue for the GA criteria? If so, let me know, and we'll try to figure out a solution.

The first paragraph of the obscenity section is essentially a summary of what follows, but I've also added a citation to the EB, where this can be more directly confirmed. Also added a citation verifying the existence of Son of Sam laws. Just let me know if anything else is needed, and thanks again! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The audio version is not essential for GA, so I won't make an issue of it, but if you wish to take this to FA I can see it being a problem. I shall have a full look through the article this evening (UTC).--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I'm just interested in getting this to GA for now. Thanks again for taking on this review, I know the article's a bit of a long one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get round to this, I had these annoying things called A-levels to prepare for. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Is the text of the Amendment PD? If not, the first sentence paraphrases quite closely. Otherwise well written and accessible to a reasonably educated lay-person (me) -

   Yep, definitely PD -- adopted on December 15, 1791. Added a citation, by the way, as I realized this counts as a quotation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance: Some images need to be shrunk so they do not oppose another image in the same horizontal line.

   I think I've resolved this issue. What section of the MOS is that in, btw? Want to make sure I catch it on future reviews. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Mostly cited to books, with some direct citations to cases, seem accurate and duplication detector shows no copyvio. -

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research: Could you confirm that where a single citation appears at the end of a paragraph, it suuports all the material therein? If there are case where this is not true, could you add citations to the material not covered? Also could you cite the "Lemon Test", preferebly after the colon. -

   Added citation for "Lemon Test" criteria--thanks for the catch. I can verify that citations confirm all information before them, except perhaps in a few cases where noncontroversial statements are made. I inherited a lot of text with this article, but I believe I've double-checked all of it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: covers all major facets of the topic ... -

   B. Focused: ... but unnecessary content such as minor cases has been removed -

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc: no ongoing edit wars, overwhelming majority of recent edits by nom -

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: All images appear to be in the public domain -

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that addresses the points above, but just let me know if I missed any or more is needed. And good luck on the A-levels!! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I believe that is it, and the relevant part of the MOS is "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar", part of WP:MOSIM. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Really appreciate the help and editing on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)