Talk:Community-based program design/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, should have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 20:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * The lead is too long and disproportionate for an article this size. At the moment it is one huge paragraph which makes it hard to the reader to read. I would strongly recommend splitting it into at least three paragraphs in order for it to comply per WP:LEAD and meeting the GA criteria
 * Per WP:LEAD, it is discouraged from using numbered examples in the lead. Furthermore, if anything is not mentioned anywhere else in the article then it should not be in the lead!
 * Per MOS layouts the picture should be at the very top of the article
 * The caption isn't strong enough to illustrate anything. "Community"? But isn't it people ice skating?


 * There are a few sentences in the History section that are unsourced. Also, the prose is slightly choppy as there are a lot of short paragraphs
 * "(for more, see: deinstitutionalization)" - should be removed as it should be replaced with a citation
 * "Formally, community-based program development has been professionalized by such disciplines as urban studies and planning and social work" - unsourced. Can it either be expanded or merged into another paragraph?
 * "Melvin Delgado, in 1999, illustrated this point by quoting Harper (1990)" - who is Delgado? What profession is he in? If he's not notable enough then the red link should probably be removed
 * Typically the bullet points in the Advantages section should be converted into prose, as per most GAs
 * "Low availability of limited resources is also associated with low levels of participant retention" - unsourced
 * "The five levels usually include" - why usually? Are there different variations?
 * Logic model paragraph largely unsourced

Close - not listed
I'm really sorry to do this seeing as you had to wait a while for this to be reviewed, but at the moment the article does not meet the GA criteria. The prose is somewhat choppy and the lead is larger than any other section of the article; it's disproportionate and also contains information that the body doesn't provide. I go by a rule that the lead should summarise the article and should act as a "mini article". I really hate failing GANs, but there are some serious organisational issues to tend to before this can meet the GA criteria. If you have any questions please do ask, otherwise good luck! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 13:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)