Talk:Free Derry/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- Throughout the article there are a lot of parenthetical insertations, which tend to make the prose choppy and harder to read. Try to integrate at least some of these into the prose.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Web refs need publishers and access dates
- Book refs (in the bibliography section) need publishers
- A few places need references:
- April 1969 section, last sentences of second and third paragraphs
- April-October 1969 section, last two sentences of first paragraph
- Internment and the third Free Derry section, end of first paragraph and most of second paragraph
- February-July 1972 section, last sentence of section
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- What happened to this area after 1972? The article just seems to drop off the edge of the world at the end... Did the residents just give up and learn to coexist with the British soldiers? If the sign is still there, is there still a feeling of resentment towards the British? Did policies on housing, gerrymandering and the other causes of the original marches get dealt with?
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Overall, this is a nice article. I have a few issues with prose, references and coverage, so I am putting the article on hold to give you some time to address my concerns. Drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for a very fair and positive review. I hope to do some edits to deal with the outstanding issues within the next four days. Scolaire (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Are you still working on this article? I see that you have done some work, but none of the referencing or coverage concerns have been dealt with. The article has been on hold for longer than a week already, so I would like to know if I should keep the hold going or go ahead and fail the article. I don't really want to fail it, as there's not much that needs to be done to finish polishing it, but it is not at GA status as it stands now. Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. Nice work! One suggestion for further improvement would be to make sure that you have all of the book refs in split ref format, as I noticed there are a couple of books that you only use once that are only used in in-line references, without a corresponding Bibliography entry. Dana boomer (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Are you still working on this article? I see that you have done some work, but none of the referencing or coverage concerns have been dealt with. The article has been on hold for longer than a week already, so I would like to know if I should keep the hold going or go ahead and fail the article. I don't really want to fail it, as there's not much that needs to be done to finish polishing it, but it is not at GA status as it stands now. Dana boomer (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)