Talk:Abraham Goldfaden/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):  
    b (MoS):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    • There are a great number of unsourced paragraphs. It is possible that they can be sourced from the existing refereneces. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
      • I drew this all from the specified sources when I wrote it, but at the time it was not Wikipedia policy to footnote every individual fact, so I did not. I have no interest in trying to reassemble and re-research these sources: for example, Bercovici's book is available only in Yiddish (which I do not read) and Romanian (3 copies in the U.S., to my knowledge: I managed to borrow one from the University of Chicago, through Seattle Public Library, but doubt I could do so again). - Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • OK, I am prepared to accept in good faith that the unsourced sections are supported by Bercovici as you have specified that it is the primary source. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    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:  
    I accept that this article was correctly sourced at the time of its promotion to GA status and the criteria suggest that only controversial statements need to be cited with in-line citations. I will confirm the status of this as a Good article, but would urge that editors work to find further sourcing as opportunities present themselves. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply