Talk:Illinois's 3rd congressional district/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 26, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Economy: Lists do not accord with the MoS

   The section on Politics may need updating to the present.

   The Presidential voting section needs an update.

   The population figures from 2000 need an update, and probably the other demographics.

   Prose is adequate but could be improved.

   ArticleName: Surely Illinois's 3rd congressional district should be Illinois' 3rd congressional district, or is US grammar different in this respect from British English? Y

   • "Illinois" is singular, hence the 's.—Markles 01:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Consistency requires that inline html links are converted into inline citations

   I tagged 4 dead links and repaired two using WP:CHECKLINKS

   There are outstanding citation needed tags (some from October 2007) and I added some more where needed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

   Issue above need to be addressed - on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   No substantive edits have been made to address these issues so I am delisting this article. PLease bring it back to WP:GAN when the work has been done. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)