Talk:Norman, Oklahoma/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In accordance with lead sections (see left), ideally all it should consist of is a set of summaries of longer or less-joined up statements made elsewhere. Therefore kindly repeat by interweaving into prose the statements into the existing sections, keeping all the references, and thereby free the lead from citations. I am pleased to see this has been adequately addressed, subject to a wishlist for FA status.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).	150 sources, all of which appear properly formatted.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No first-person or on-the-ground sources are used for contestable statements, save for recent photographs excepted from no original research in my view.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Compared to other articles on comparable cities in population, Norman is very well developed, even to the extent of having sourced data about Neighborhoods which rightly sets those places out with notable facts and negates the twin perils of editors indulging in significant overlap and of readers setting up articles which do not meet standalone notability.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No deviations
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Norman's article has only one shortcoming in my view, having regard to all the good article criteria and some links are broken. - Adam37 Talk 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Reviewer: Adam37 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So all that needs to be fixed is the Dead links and the lead section is that correct--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. - Adam37 Talk 20:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'll get to fixing these issues then.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 20:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed all the issues you have listed.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Adam37 Talk 13:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So great to see this go to GA standing! Okguy (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)