Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/GA1

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

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * I hope you don't mind I did some copy edits to simplify the language in a couple of spots.
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead is a bit short compared to the size of the article and does not cover all the main points. Material could be drawn from the content summary and the impact section
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * Material is sourced, citations are uniformly formatted using citation templates. No technical errors were found. Checklinks and Reflinks found no problems
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * Cited sources are high quality news sources and journal articles. Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing
 * C. No original research:
 * All opinions expressed are those of the cited sources; no OR found
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * All main points for books are covered (author, summary of contents, style/genre [covered by the reviews], impact, pub. history, reception)
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I have placed the article on hold for a week to address the one issue: the lead needs to be beefed up a bit as it does not presently cover all the main points addressed in the article. Very nice job Cirt, an interesting and informative article. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Diannaa for doing the review, I will respond to this soon and note it back here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay Diannaa I've expanded the lede/intro sect per your recommendation, above, perhaps you could have another look? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's great. Thanks for responding so quickly. The article has now passed to GA class. Good job -- Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)