Talk:Nativity scene/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Please remember that there are many non-US readers of Wikipedia, and many of them (yours truely included) has never heard of PETA. Therefore, always spell out such organizations, no matter how famous in a particular country. Again, this goes under the section "Controversies and lawsuits", where mentioningn the country is important to create context. For instance, it is not sufficient to write San Jose, California, but instead San Jonse, [California,] United States (your option if you want to specify the state). Many people have extremly bad knowledge of geography, and may not know in which country California, let alone Montana, is located. Remember, the English Wikipedia is read by many people from all over the world. Another instance is "In 1985, the Supreme Court...", where it is not specified which supreme court is in question, and also where Supreme Court should be wikilinked. More on this at Countering systemic bias. While you are free to use the term "American" to decribe something from the US, always use "United States" to decribe the country, since "America" is very ambiguous, and may be confused with the Americas. Otherwise the prose is good, and the article is interesting and well structured. By only concern is that there is a little bit too little wikilining sometimes (such as that neither Mary, Joseph or the Old Testament were wikilinked). I have done a minor copyedit, but the questions raised above need to be addressed.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I notice you have chosen to manually format the references. Unlike almost all other manually formatted references, this article has a consistent and adequate output. However, I would recommend that in future articles, you use the cite templates, since it makes it a lot easier for multiple users to work with referencing the same article. Due to the high quality, I will not require a conversion in this article though.
 * 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):
 * Concerning the image licenses, File:Nativity Scene 1966.jpg does not have a valid fair use rationale. Book covers can only be used with fair use rationale when discussion the book in question, not when discussion the topic the book covers. Public domain states that just because the publisher is defunct, does not mean the copyright has not been renewed, as the estate-in-bankruptcy may have sold the intellectual property in bulk. The burden of proof that the book has not had its copyright renewed is therefore on the uploader. Therefore, I have removed the image. There are a few MOS rules for images: 1) Do not force image size (this is for accessibility reasons for people who may want large images (large screen/bad sight) or small images (conventional modem connection). The exception may be the first image, which then should be 300px, to not make it smaller for people who have set 300px as the default image size. 2) Avoid sandwiching text between two images. This creates difficulty for people with small resolution. 3) Left-aligned images should not start right under a header. The header and the first paragraph below should always be commonly aligned, therefore stick left-aligned images in the middle of sections. In addition, I would have preferred if the images were spread more around the article, right now they take up a lot of space in two limited parts of the article. Otherwise, the images are good quality, varied and with appropriate captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold. Overall well written and exiting article. To get passed GA, the images need to be moved around, and the geographic biased needs a bit of tweaking. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them here. Arsenikk (talk)  11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold. Overall well written and exiting article. To get passed GA, the images need to be moved around, and the geographic biased needs a bit of tweaking. If you have any questions or comments, do not hesitate to state them here. Arsenikk (talk)  11:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing this article! I have followed your recommendations and the work is (I believe!) completed. I have rearranged some sections slightly in moving the images about but the rearrangement does not affect the structure significantly nor the references. I think the movement of images and some text improves the article. I've also done some wikilinking and will keep up on this. No new material has been added. Waiting to hear from you! ReverendLogos (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work, and creative thinking about the reorganization. All is good now; congratulations with a good article. Arsenikk (talk)  10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)