Talk:The CIA and September 11/GA1
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Jezhotwells in topic GA Reassessment
GA Reassessment
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am conducting a reassessment of this article as part of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps|GA sweeps process]. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment
- The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
- The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
- The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
No obvious problems checking against GA criteria, proceed to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
- The artcile is reasonably well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- b (MoS):
- It complies sufficuiently with MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
Paragraph #3 of Response needs referencing. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Done Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- b (citations to reliable sources):
- references appaers to be RS and support the statements where verifiable. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- c (OR):
- No OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- a (references):
- It is broad in its scope.
- a (major aspects):
- Broad. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- b (focused):
- Focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- one image is used, suitably tagged, with non-free use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- and suitably captioned. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
I would like a reference to the paragraph cited above. On hold whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, all sorted now. Keep GA Status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Reference added. It was from the Spiegel article being discussed in the paragraphs above and below - I'd hoped it was fairly obvious it was all coming from the same source, but of course in retrospect it looks a bit like a randomly inserted, uncited paragraph. TheGrappler (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)