Talk:A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 5, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: A few minor points here:
 * 1) At one stop on the book tour associated with the publication and release of the book at the David A. Clarke School of Law of the University of the District of Columbia, Jackson's message was perceived - this subsection should be a summary of the book itself, not a discussion of it - that should go in a "Reception" or "Reviews" or "Analysis" section. Thus, this info needs to be moved out of this section to somewhere else.
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Dyson also notes that Jackson attempts to bring class to the forefront of the discourse in an effort to offer a political vision toward social equity and equality. He says Jackson views race as the lens to optimally view American history and views economic issues as the hearing aid through which the politics of today can best be heard. - same with this info, also inappropriate for it to be placed in this particular subsection.
 * 3) Then, he discusses federalism. In the third section he describes his economic plan. Then, Jackson outlines eight constitutional amendments. Then, in the final section he discusses achieving these policy goals set forth in the third and fourth sections. - Then... Then ... Then ... - this could be worded a bit better without all the "Thens"...
 * fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Cited adequately throughout, with appropriate formatting.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Article gives the subject matter a thorough treatment. Could use perhaps at least one more review in the Reviews subsection.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Article appears to be written in a neutral manner.
 * 5. Article stability? Recent edits appear to be minor only, no problems in edit history.
 * 6. Images?: One image used, fair use rationale provided. But the image is a bit crooked in the infobox - could this be fixed somehow? Perhaps find a different source with an image of the book cover that is not crooked?
 * Whereever the original is it is slanted and everything on the net over 150 is similarly slanted. See my efforts on the image version history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Passed
Nice work. Thanks for responding to all my points so quickly. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)