Talk:Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem/GA1

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

I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No images used in the article, so nothing really to review here. Would it be possible to upload a free-use image to Wikimedia Commons and add it to this article? I added to the article's talk page, but perhaps a posting to the talkpage of WP:Alabama might yield some results? Cirt (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * Update: left an inquiry with WP:Alabama. Cirt (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Stability review
 * 1) Edit history - No major issues here. Minor IP issues from a few months ago, upon inspection of article's edit history. Something to keep an eye on going forward.
 * 2) Talk page history - I notice there was some disagreement at Talk:Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem/Archive 1 - has this been fully resolved? Cirt (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review and comments. I've asked on WP:Alabama if anyone can take any pictures of the synagogue, so that might yield results, but I suspect it will take some time. Regarding the disagreement in the archive, it was over one sentence, and was resolved with the IP editor in question. Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah okay thanks for the responses. I'll do the rest of the review soon. Cirt (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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 December 19, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: A few issues remain to be addressed:


 * Lede - Should be expanded a bit more, per WP:LEAD, to reflect a fuller and more descriptive summary of the entire article. The lede should be able to be a standalone piece.
 * Small paragraphs - Several one-sentence paragraphs throughout, these should be merged into other paragraphs.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to WP:RS/WP:V sources, with good use of formatting. Passes here.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers important aspects of organization as well as history, notable members etc. Passes here.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a clear and neutral manner. Passes here.
 * 5. Article stability? See above. Passes here.
 * 6. Images?: See above. Passes here.

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) 01:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful comments. I've expanded the lede to more fully cover the article contents, and I've merged all one-sentence paragraphs to other paragraphs. Please let me know if you think the article needs any other improvements. Jayjg (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks a bit better. I still notice three one-sentence paragraphs - one in the lede, one in Early history, and one in Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! I got the one in Early history now - hadn't noticed that. I couldn't find the ones in the lede or Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem, though; could you be a bit more specific? Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, those are two sentence paragraphs, but still should probably be merged, they look awkward as standalone short paragraphs. The last paragraph in the lede, and the first paragraph in Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it! O.K., I've added a sentence to the paragraph in the lede, and merged the paragraph in Agudath Israel Etz Ahayem. What do you think? Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. I will give the article another pass soon. Cirt (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pass as GA
Thanks for responding to my above points. Great work overall on the article. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)