Talk:Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This article will be reviewed shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * B. MoS compliance:


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * A. References to sources:


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:


 * C. No original research:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Fair representation without bias:


 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:



Reviewer notes: This article is not ready for GA status at this time. Too small an editing history in the last month to see giving a hold with this much work. If editors return and work is accomplished, please resubmit and notify reviewer.


 * Lede does not reflect article content well and has repetitive wording.
 * Section headers should not reflect the subject per MoS. "Writing the speech" - "Summery of speech" headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated. Other heading are longer than are needed.
 * The article misses a major issue, what the speech is about. The "history", "Origin" or "Background" to provide a clear understanding of why the speech was made is missing and should be above all sections.
 * There are 30 references in this article...but not a single reference or inline citation in the entire "Summary" section.
 * The body of the article suffers from the same repetitive wording of the lede. Use of the same phrases read badly.
 * The sections "Domestic response" and "International response" needs copy editing. They are basically lists of reviews separated as individual short paragraphs and require tightening and prose to add context.
 * While the article has a few negative mentions, over all it does not read in a neutral manner. Comes across almost idealistic. This may be cleaned up with copy editing and further research.

Overall the prose is quite poor and a great deal of referencing is required. A change in tone to be more neutral and encyclopedic is also very much needed. The fact that the article skips the issue of background or origin concerns me a great deal. This, of course could be linked to the main article on the subject of the speech itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised this article was nominated for GA. I was thinking about renominating for deletion in the future, once the recentism has worn off. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)