Talk:Lachine massacre/Archive 1

GA Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet
 * 1) The Introduction needs to be expanded significantly so that it adequately summarizes the entire article in a few paragraphs.
 * 2) An infobox would be helpful at the top of the article as well to help summarize some of the major details.
 * 3) Many editors frown on one-sentence paragraphs. I would suggest merging the sentencens that stand alone into existing paragraphs or into paragraphs of their own (such as in the "historical accounts" section.
 * 4) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass the article is sufficently sourced.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Pass no problems there.
 * 1) One nitpick though, the source for the book quote should be placed directly after the quote itself, instead of after the name of the book that it comes from.
 * 2) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass no problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Not Yet Solving the above issues will make the article stable.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass no problems there.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold just a few things need to be done to get the article a promotion. -Ed! (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to GA review
AlphaEta 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * 2) The Introduction has been expanded to summarize the article's overall contents.
 * 3) An infobox has been added.
 * 4) One-sentence paragraphs have been consolidated.
 * 5) It is broad in its coverage:
 * 6) Source for book quotation has been moved to end of the quotation.
 * Ok, that looks good. Well done! -Ed! (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)