Talk:2007 Boston Mooninite panic/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article has been in the GAN backlog for a while. I'll be doing a GA review of this article today. Please be patient. AstroCog (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Things to fix

 * Ref #13 is a dead link.
 * There shouldn't be wikilinks inside of quotes. (for example, "L-E-D, not I-E-D").
 * Gonna need to copy edit this thing. I'll do what I can, but it's a long article, so nominator/major contributors should pitch in or recruit a copy editor.
 * There's a lot of careless language in this article. For example, in the lead, it say the scare was met with criticism from different sources. What part of the scare was met with criticism? The response from authorities? The advertising campaign itself?


 * All images need appropriate alt text. See [altviewer] for info about this page. Alt text should briefly describe the purpose of the image for blind readers or for readers using a text browser.
 * One of the images has the caption which starts with "Err advertisement..." I don't know what "Err" means. Is that in the article?
 * Last image could be cropped and enlarged to better see the device itself.

Criteria checks

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Needs copy edit for careless language (see section above).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Seems fine.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No apparent problems.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No problem here.
 * 1) 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):
 * Alt text needs to be improved. See issues above.
 * 1) Overall: GAN fails due to lack of editor interest in making improvements.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Make improvements suggested above. Main thing this article needs is a copy edit.

Move to Law
While a review has started, would this get more attention in the "Law" section? "Law" has a shorter list and its more likely to get someone who's interested in crimes (which "Law" encompasses). This article really has nothing to do with warfare. Can the move be made? --S. Rich (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think which GAN category it is in is irrelevant at this point. I agree that it doesn't seem to be a "war and military" topic, but I don't think it's a "law" topic either. It doesn't make sense to change categories once the GA review finishes. When editors of this article are ready to renominate, they can find a more appropriate category for it. I'm beginning to think that this was a drive-by nomination by an editor not heavily involved with the article. I meant to fail the GAN yesterday for lack of any responses. I'll give it until the end of the day. AstroCog (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I put out a call on a couple WikiProjects. We'll see if there are any takers today. AstroCog (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007
Senator Leahy says here: The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act....The bill also clarifies and strengthens two existing statutes – the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act – which are designed to improve public safety. Which sounds like it was passed.

Threatening terrorism against the United States says 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(c)(1)(g) "was amended by the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007.[2]" and uses this link as evidence it was. If anyone else is an expert in figuring this out and thereby correcting this article as necessary, as well as spelling out details and sentencing guidelines, go for it. CarolMooreDC 20:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)