Talk:Encyclopedia of Chicago/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * GA review (see What is a good article?)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Notes
 * 1 image: Fair use with good rationale.
 * Good use of Inflation
 * I did some copyedits to clear up some of the language
 * I made all the 4-digit number consistent per Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
 * There is no critical reception. The article mentions that reviews of the book were done (ie. WSJ) but doesn't say what the reviewers wrote about it.
 * The WSJ link does not actually contain the review. I don't have other online access to it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to cobble together a critical review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great! --maclean (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)