Talk:The CIA and September 11/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (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

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. 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

1. 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)

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • Stable

6. 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)

7. 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)

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)