Talk:Portland Monthly/GA1

GA Review

Check 1

I am checking that the article meets a few basic things listed at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles before I do an in depth review:

• The article has sources.
• The article is not clearly POV
• The article has no cleanup banners .
• The article doesn't seem to be the subject of any major ongoing edit wars
• The article doesn't specifically concern a rapidly unfolding current event without a definite endpoint Anonymous101 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these positive comments in this initial Check 1. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Check 2

Issues:

• Although this is not required by policy, I think that having two paragraphs in the lead would be a good addition. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• The lead section is unreferenced. Please back up claims in the article. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• I am not sure that this article goes into enough detail on the content of this publication. Maybe you could add sections about any paticuarly notable articles in the Portland Monthly (have there been any?) and maybe more on the features of the magazine. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Maybe you could have a section on the website, to help provide a more in depth view on the subject. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• It is nice to see an article where all the sources are reasonable reliable, with no WP:SPS. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• All sections other than the lead section are fully referenced. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• The Wall Street Journal is a good example of an in depth (though poorly referenced) GA on a similar publication. Maybe ideas from that could be used in expansion. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• The article follows NPOV and is stable. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• The spelling on grammar is good. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to Check 2

1. I broke the intro/lead into 2 paragraphs. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Please see WP:LEAD. The intro/lead is a summary of the rest of the article, and as everything in that lead is sourced later in the article (as you noted above) to WP:RS/WP:V sources, no need to have duplicate citations in the lead. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
3. In the course of my research I have not found WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that delve into detail about any particular articles by the Portland Monthly. What you see in the article itself at the time being is the result of research and searches through multiple database archives, and the WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources present already in the article is what I was able to come up with. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
4. Regarding a section on the website - See my prior point, I would love to have more info on this but there is not much else out there in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Regarding the GA article The Wall Street Journal, you are correct it is pretty poorly referenced and probably shouldn't even be a GA anymore. Not really the best model to use, IMO - but even so as I stated above even if it were to be used as a model for something, not much other info out there in secondary sources to draw from. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You make valid points and I see no reason no to pass the review. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Check 3

• All my above concerns have been addressed. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• First year section meets appropriate style guidelines and is fully referenced. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• 2004 - present section is also fully referenced and appears to meet appropriate style guidelines. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Reception section is also properly referenced and follows the style guide. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I wish the article was longer, I reaslise that is impossible with the current lack of WP:RS available on The Portland Monthly. GA Review passed. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)