Talk:BYU Jerusalem Center/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] Much better. I think the article is now well written. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] Much better. I think the article is now well written. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance:
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] Agreed. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] Agreed. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * I did read the source, which says the following:
 * I did read the source, which says the following:
 * I did read the source, which says the following:

"'We really have bent over backwards not to take sides,' said Victor Ludlow, professor of ancient scripture and coordinator for near eastern studies. 'We have been able to maintain a good reputation with both sides.'"
 * When including an opinion, is should be attributed and the fact that the individual has the opinion should be discussed. I would rewrite it to read:

"'During the fighting, the center's staff remained on location. According to a BYU professor, the center managed to maintain good relations on both Israelis and Palestinians.'"
 * Please see WP:ASF for including facts and facts about opinions. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you say so in the first place? You made it sound like such a big thing that would take so much work to fix. I'll fix it right now, easy. Wrad (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ta-daa! Done. Wrad (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] Agreed. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * Wrad, it's not only citing sources, it's about how the article is written. Replace "Some considered this discriminatory" with who specifically thought the action was discriminatory. Even a search in Proquest only yielded an abstract of the 2004 Professional Geographer article you cite. WP:POV states: Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:
 * Who advocates the point of view
 * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
 * Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently you haven't noticed that the article has changed to say that it was Israelis who said this. Reasoning is already in the article. I don't believe listing specific names is really necessary. It was just a minority opinion in the Knesset. I really don't see the problem here anymore. Wrad (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] I didn't notice, but I do now. Thank you for pointing that out. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] I didn't notice, but I do now. Thank you for pointing that out. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] That was fast. Very good. Thank you for adding more in-line citations, instead of overall paragraph citations. Much easier to verify. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] That was fast. Very good. Thank you for adding more in-line citations, instead of overall paragraph citations. Much easier to verify. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] That was fast. Very good. Thank you for adding more in-line citations, instead of overall paragraph citations. Much easier to verify. Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] Not a reason to fail, I agree. It was intended as a suggestion to improve the article. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] Not a reason to fail, I agree. It was intended as a suggestion to improve the article. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support2 vote.svg|15px]] Not a reason to fail, I agree. It was intended as a suggestion to improve the article. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * I'm a bit peeved that this was failed without any chance for us to defend ourselves. And the reviewer didn't even sign his review! This is NOT grounds for a quick fail! Wrad (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like a second opinion. This article should at the very least have been put on hold. I have asked for a second opinion on the GA page. Wrad (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I plan to lift sources into the article from some of the articles cited in order to make it obvious to even a superficial ref-count review that this article is neutral. Wrad (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Article sources count (if you value such things) stands thus:


 * American (non-Mormon) sources: 14
 * Mormon/BYU sources: 18
 * Jewish sources: 9

Seems good enough to me! Wrad (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, please try not to take this review personally. I've added a few (signed) comments above. Please consider making a few changes as recommended. I respect your request for a second opinion, and apologize for not granting you the appropriate hold time to improve this article. I believe, however, you have a better chance of success if you make more changes than just changing the capitalization of a few words. Farside6 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have changed a lot more than that. Haven't you seen it? Wrad (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I get like this sometimes. I'm going to take a break. I've changed a lot of stuff so have a look and maybe the other editor who's been working on this will come along. He's a bit more cool-headed than I am. Wrad (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is now a good article! Farside6 (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I missed an exciting day of editing yesterday. Thanks to Farside6 for the review and to Wrad for the follow-up. --Eustress (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)