Talk:Beth Israel Congregation (Jackson, Mississippi)/GA1

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

I am reviewing this article. Cirt (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No images present in the article. This is not a failing point (only would be able to review if there were actual images to review) but it would be nice to have some free-use images for the article. Would be a good idea to place a request at the talk page of WP:MISSISSIPPI - has that been done yet? Cirt (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Image review
 * Ah, I see the nominator is one step ahead of me, and there is already a reply. That looks promising, and I'm glad the effort was already made to post a query to the associated WikiProject's talk page. Passes here. Cirt (talk) 10:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your last review of one of the articles I wrote gave me the idea. :-) Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sweeeeeeeeeet. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No activity to speak of on the article's talk page. No issues present upon inspection of the article history going back a few months. Passes here. Cirt (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stability 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 January 2, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?:


 * Are the cites needed in the lede? The lede should be a summary of the article, and a stand-alone piece, per WP:LEAD, so that info should all already be sourced later on in the article.
 * Several one-sentence or two-sentence paragraphs, these short paragraphs should be merged into other material.
 * There are several places where sentences are a bit too long, making too much liberal use of commas, and thus seeming a bit run on, and also drawn out, kind of like this sentence itself, although not exactly, although yeah on second thought pretty much just like this sentence. These should be addressed/split apart/copyedited improved.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to WP:RS/WP:V sources. Passes here.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects of history up to the present day. Passes here.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral, clear, and matter of fact tone. 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) 09:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Regarding your questions:
 * Whether or not cites are required in the lede is a bit of a debate; my read of WP:LEADCITE is that it leans towards having them, though it doesn't mandate them. All of my FAs and GAs have citations in the lede. However, I am careful to ensure that the lede has no new material in it; all material in the lede is a summary of material in the article, and the citations used all exist elsewhere in the article.
 * Two-sentence paragraphs too? That's a bit strict, and a matter of personal taste, don't you think? In any event, I've eliminated the one-sentence paragraph, and I believe I've eliminated almost all two-sentence paragraphs too.
 * I've tried to split some longer sentences. Are there any that remain that you think are too long?
 * Jayjg (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses, only one thing remains:
 * Great, no worries.
 * Much better.
 * Early years - The first sentence of the first paragraph, 1st and 2nd sentences of the 2nd paragraph, and 1st, 2nd and 3rd sentences of the third paragraph, are still a bit awkward. Otherwise, looks pretty good.
 * Cirt (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * O.K., I think I've fixed the issues; what do you think? Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Passed as GA
Great work. Thanks for responding to all of the above points. Cirt (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)