Talk:Indianapolis in the American Civil War/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In both the 1861 and 1864 sections there are paragraphs of one sentence. Can these be either expanded or combined with other sections?
   • The "Consequences" section looks a little...odd...with only one (short) sentence. Could this either be expanded or combined with another section? Perhaps "1865 and final consequences" or something, if the section cannot be expanded.
   • According to the latest decision by MOS gurus, dates are not supposed to be linked unless they have a special significance.
   • In the 1862 section, you say "Events in Kentucky and Tennessee caused the major difference in Indianapolis during the war." I'm really not sure what you mean by this... I guess what's confusing me is why what's described in the following sentences caused "the major difference".
   • Athenaeum (in the 1862 section) is a dab link - I think that Athenæum (Das Deutsche Haus) might be what you are looking for, but I'm not sure. Could you check?
   • In the 1863 section, you say "causing many of the personal weapons held by the Democrats to land in Pogue's Run as the train passed by the creek." Did the Democratic candidates toss their own weapons because they had some reason to be afraid of being caught with them, or did the soldiers toss them into the creek just for the heck of it?
   • In the 1864 section, you say "Three bounty jumpers were executed at Burnside Barracks." Could you give a little more context for this? Even a date would help.
   • If you're going to link the Indianapolis Journal, do so in the first place you mention it (1861), rather than in 1865 like you do now.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • This article gets all of its information from only three sources. Now, if this represents a complete grasp of the subject then it is fine. However, are there no newspaper/magazine articles or other sources that you can refer to?

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:

A few comments about prose/MOS and one question about referencing, so I am putting this article on hold. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I took care of most of your concerns. I'll try to correct the rest this evening, as I'll be gone on Wednesday and Thursday.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 17:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

All your concerns should be fixed now.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)