Talk:Brooks–Baxter War/GA1

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead is too short for an article of this length. It should be 3-4 paragraphs long and give a good summary of the entire article, while including no new information.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The placement of references needs to be standardized. They should be placed either immediately before or after the punctuation (most editors prefer after), with no space in between.
 * I have added a few fact tags where references are needed. Please note that when the tag is at the end of a paragraph in which there are no references, generally the entire paragraph needs referencing, not just the last sentence.
 * The formatting of the references needs some work. Bare urls need to have more information added, especially when they are books. Books should include title, author, publisher, publication date and isbn at the least, and page numbers if possible.
 * Why has the decision been made to split out some of the Arkansas Gazette references into short refs in the numbered notes and more information bulleted later in the references section? There is not much information on these references, and all of the information could easily be included in the in-line references.
 * Reference #4 should include the title of the exact article that is being referred to within the publication, and the url should be linked to the title, rather than being a bare reference.
 * Reference #5 should have the url linked through the title, as well.
 * Reference #23 needs a publisher.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

This article has quite a few issues with referencing that need to be addressed. Because of this, I have not yet thoroughly examined the article for prose, POV or coverage. When the referencing issues have been mostly taken care of, I will begin my review of the remaining issues. I will be watchlisting this page, and please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe a lot of the ref needed tags placed were actually for paragraphs that summarized the information directly proceeding them. I have gone through and added refs where I felt like they were necessary. This is a difficult topic to reference because of so much conflicting evidence, if more specific references or clarification is needed I need to know specifically what the discrepancies are, who? what? when? where? etc. I believe the article is reasonably free of WP:weasel words. What I need the most help with is prose, since this is a pretty complicated topic that has hardly any thorough contemporary sources. --The_stuart (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the work you've done so far on the article. I'm sorry I haven't had time to conduct a thorough prose review so far - I will attempt to get to that within the next few days. In the meantime, could you please work on the remaining fact tag and the other reference formatting/information that I have requested above. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate page numbers needed: FALSE: