Talk:Omagh bombing/GA1

GA Review

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

I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

• The lead is one big run-on sentence. Please break up.
• Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to be a summary of the major points of the article. In an article of this length it should be three paragraphs with the highlights from the article in summary form.
• The photo in the lead requires Fair Use rationale in order to be used in this article. See WP:FU for more info on this and what information is required in the FU rationale. That's a key photo by the way and great to include in this article! H1nkles (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The 'Overview section actually was the lead originally, and then it was moved over. The Squicks (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding overview

This section is good. What about a background section? A little history on the RIRA. Why did they break away from the IRA? This would help make it more comprehensive. I think it's pretty significant that they actually apologized!

• This is a general comment that I notice through out the article, you need to put a comma before a quote. For example, "Sinn Féin leader Martin McGuinness later stated that "This appalling act was carried out by those opposed to the peace process." You should put a comma after "that". This is one example of a prevailing grammatical error through out the article.
• Be sure to check the in the Reactions subsection. Otherwise the sourcing here is very pervasive and thorough. H1nkles (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding responsibility

• I don't think a review of the quality of the TV program is really relevant to the article. The findings of the program's investigation certainly is though. H1nkles (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding memorials

• Is there a photo of the memorial? Has it been completed? H1nkles (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding References

• Several references are not formatted properly, either missing publisher, accessdate, or both. These include: 7,10,15,18,23,27,35,58,59,65-68,71.
• The following reference numbers have dead links that will need to be fixed: 5,19,20,33,34,36.
• Reference 73 isn't formatted correctly for a newspaper citation. See WP:Cite for how to cite from a newspaper. Same can be said for reference 74.

Overall review

• Overall the article is pretty good, close to passing even.
• The lead is a big issue, you mention the overview section was a part of the lead, that should be moved back into the lead, though you usually don't need to cite so much in the lead as the citations should be duplicated in the body of the article.
• To be comprehensive a background section on the RIRA and some of the issues related to the Belfast Agreement and even Omagh's place in the Irish conflict should be discussed.
• More photos if possible. Especially of the memorial.
• FU rationale of the photo in the lead has to be provided.
• Format your references and fix the dead links.
• I think that does it. I put the article on hold for a week to make changes. Good job. H1nkles (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to take a stab at fixing the problems. The Squicks (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Omagh's place in the Irish conflict I would add more info on this, but I don't actually think that there was much that happened in Omagh before the attack.

As far as the FU goes, I have no clue how to handle it. The Squicks (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the article again but the FU issue has to be addressed before I can pass it. Click on the image on the right:

[[:Image:Carlos-Smith.jpg|right|thumb|Tommie Smith (center) and John Carlos (right) showing the raised fist in the 1968 Summer Olympics]].

Look at the FU rationale and how it is formatted. Something like this needs to be done on the photo in the lead. Also look at WP:FU for more information. I can't pass it without that since it is required as part of the GA criteria. H1nkles (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I gave a rationale.

This image here explicity states that the creator is fine with it being used elsewhere. Would it be considered "free" under Wikipedia guidelines? The Squicks (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is perfect, good job. As far as the photo you asked about, I'm really a poor person to ask about that. I've stayed away from copyright arguments thus far in my wikipedia career. I'll direct you to WP:WPFU, which is the wikiproject responsible for fair use stuff. You can click on one of the users listed as members of the project and ask them directly or list it on the article's talk page. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. When you're ready for me to finish up my review just give me a shout either here or on my talk page. Keep up the good work! H1nkles (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe there still are some dead links on the article. But that's the only problem I can think of. Is there anything else you notice? The Squicks (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Links in references 5, 31 and 32 are dead. I haven't reread the article but if you can fix those links it should be fine. Once that's done I'll reread the article and if I catch anything else I'll let you know and if it's all good then I'll pass it. Let me know when those links are fixed. H1nkles (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Link 5 (to Times Online) works fine for me. 31 and 32 refer to an online database that has since been taken down, so I replaced one and deleted the other. The Squicks (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok the article has met the GA requirements in my opinion. I will pass it at this time. Please consider less citations in the lead. Most of them are repeated in the article so you don't need to cite the lead so much. Thanks for your work and your patience. H1nkles (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)