Talk:Congregation Beth Israel (Scottsdale, Arizona)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Krohn era section, "During World War II Beth Israel provided religious services for servicemen stationed at Luke Air Force Base, and hosted dances for the military personnel there", add a comma after "World War II". In the Recent events section, this sentence ---> "Shpall, who graduated as a cantor from the Hebrew Union College in 1997, had previously served as cantor of Congregation Beth Israel of Austin, Texas", this is just me, but "of", between Congregation Beth Israel and Austin Texas, seems strange to have. Thoughts?
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, it would be best if "rabbi" is linked once. Throughout the article, link "cantor" to its correspondence article. In the Early years, first building section, link "synagogue" once. In the Recent events section, link "Phoenix metropolitan area" once.
Half-check. See bottom. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
It would help if an image can be inserted to the article, so it can illustrate the significance of it. But, if an image can't be found, I won't fail the article because of that.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review. I think I've fixed most of the problems you've found. I've also requested photographs of the synagogue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arizona - someone in Scottsdale may be able to take some, or may have some. Are you sure I should link every single occurrence of cantor? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome for the review. Alright, try to see where the image situation leads, like I said I can't fail the article because of no images. Also, no link "cantor" to the correct article, since it leads to a disambiguation page. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood before. I've fixed the "cantor" links. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Jayjg for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]