Talk:Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 12:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Cirt, upon my initial review of this article, it meets the majority of criteria for Good Article status. I will review this article more thoroughly in the coming days and I will share my comments and suggestions here for you to address before passing this to Good Article status. Thank you for all your continued extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking on the review! — Cirt (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Cirt, first and foremost, I'd like to thank you for your continued efforts in covering censorship topics. Following a more thorough review, this article meets all the criteria for Good Article status. However, I had a few brief comments and suggestions that should be addressed before passing this article to Good Article status. I hope that you don't see my brief comments as an indicator of a quickie review--I honestly had no other comments or suggestions as the article is of superior quality. My brevity indicates that you're good at what you do. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns with the below comments and suggestions. Thanks again for all your hard work on this article! -- Caponer (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the lead, would you be open to utilizing an Oxford comma after "(RIAA)" and "Mapplethorpe"? This is merely a suggestion, and certainly not a deal breaker. There is an Oxford comma after "hip hop music," so for consistency's sake, it would be good to use the Oxford comma for all listings of multiple subjects throughout the article.
• In the first paragraph of the Content summary section, it may help the reader to understand Comstock's government position as a United States Postal Inspection Service inspector. Rather than just "put forth," perhaps describe how Comstock put forth laws and influenced the United States Congress to pass these laws.
• Since the Holt source is the sole source of the second and third paragraphs, you may need only to utilize the internal citation at the end of each paragraph.

These seem pretty straightforward. Will go through them and note back here when done. — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to GA Review

1. Done. Added comma where recommended by GA Reviewer, above.
2. Done. Added suggested material to help explain further in this sentence, as recommended.
3. Done. Trimmed citations to ends of those particular paragraphs.

Thank you, Caponer, the article is better for these helpful recommendations, — Cirt (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Cirt, you are much too kind! As always, it's been a pleasure and a privilege working with you throughout this process. I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! Congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)