Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/GA1

GA Review

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.

1. Is it well written?

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

   In the Origin of the right section, why does the first sentence start with just "England"?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

   Dates need to be unlinked, per here. In the Text section, are the quotes supposed to be bolded? In the English Common Law section, it would be best if "common law" and "Boston Massacre" were linked once, per here. In the Early commentary section, italicize "Commentaries on the Laws of England", per here. Same section, link "Joseph Story" once. In the State ratification conventions section, is "The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents" a book? If so, italicize it.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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:

   It would be best if References 40 and 41 used the {{cite web}} template, and other references that don't have the cite web usage.

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   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):

   Is there a source for this ---> "This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In essence, this statute disarmed all but the very wealthy. In 1686, King James II banned without exception the Protestants' ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. Not until 1689, with the rise of William of Orange, was this reversed by the English Bill of Rights which declared that "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law"?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

   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:

   Can this article have the usage of free-use images?

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)