Talk:Civilian Public Service/GA2


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Typos: 1) "Mennoniite Publishing House" 2) WWI -> WW I. I've never seen WWI (without the space) be used in print before, but I see that WWI is a redirect to World War I so I'm willing to be convinced that is acceptable. 3) C. Everett Koop block quote--reference outside quotation marks.
 * All three of these have been addressed plus taking references out of other quotes. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) ISBNs are missing from multiple books listed as references. 2) "This research aided in development of more effective new drugs that proved more effective than quinine.[43]" Specify, or drop it.  If they suffered and died futilely ruling out potential vaccines, say that.  If they actually aided in finding a real one, say that too.  Feels weasel-y the way it's worded now. 3) I have a generalized concern that too many of the extraordinary claims of medical mistreatment and experimentation are based on one, perhaps two sources--the PBS documentary and Keim's book, assuming that PBS didn't use Keim for its own source.  I believe it appropriate for the editors of this article to assemble a better array of sources to deflect skepticism that will likely arise.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary documentation, and I just don't feel comfortable that this has met this threshold yet.  I see that a number of additional footnotes have been added since last GA review, but it still feels sparse.
 * The Gingerich and Krahn books predate the ISBN system; it is likely the Dyck book never received an ISBN number (none is listed in the book). I moved a non-reference book into "Further reading" and provided the ISBN.
 * I removed the "more effective than quinine" sentence. I can't find a source that gives more details than the Keim book.
 * I add a third source, Gingerich, to the medical experimentation section. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Only one concern: Image:CPS18erosioncontrol.jpg -- it's not easy to see at all what this depicts in thumbnail size. Consider removal or resizing.
 * I removed the image. Even at full size it is difficult to make out what is depicted. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a few other minor notes, on request from Jclemens... the GA review generally looks good, and the article is pretty close too! —Giggy 07:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to take the image out of the notes section?
 * I'm not seeing a real problem with the image in the notes section. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you shrink the main image; it makes reading the lead pretty difficult.
 * I moved this to parallel the table of contents. ✤ JonHarder talk 22:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)