Talk:Nashville sit-ins/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   A few spots where a bit of information would help comprehension

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   One spot of opinion needs a citation

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:

Specific concerns

• Lead:
  • Should give the dates of the events in the very beginning of the lead, first sentence.
• Historical context:
  • Would not hurt to put a cite on the first paragraph (although I'll not require it).
  • The last paragraph, the last sentence needs a citation, as it's opinion. (Granted, not very controversial, but still enough of one that it should be cited)
• Full-scale:
  • "During the first week of February.." specifcy the year please? I assume it's 1960, but it would be better to be sure.

Just very minor little things, the only thing really needed is the one citation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the concerns above. Let me know if you notice any other areas for improvement. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! It was already a pretty spiffy article, but since I was going to make you do that one cite, figured I'd have you pick up a few other small spots I noticed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)