Talk:Nehemiah Corporation of America/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAG UAR   16:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead needs to be expanded somewhat in order to summarise the article per WP:LEAD
 * The infobox isn't at the top of the article? The lead's text shouldn't be above it
 * "According to its website, by the time the Nehemiah Program ceased operations, it had assisted over 300,000 home buyers with over $1 billion in down payments" - no need for "according to its website". Also, I would recommend moving this sentence to the end of the previous paragraph
 * I've fixed the references section :P
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No original research found.
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I recognise that this article is well researched and written, however there are a couple of formatting errors that stand in the way, along with a short lead section. Once the above have been dealt with I'll pass this. If you have any questions please let me know. JAG UAR   22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for conducting this review. Also, thanks for fixing the reference section.  Your help has been greatly appreciated.  Most of the items noted in your list have been addressed (one of them not by me, but by a Good Samaritan who happened to pass by).  This leaves the most substantive of your concerns -- the too-short lead section.  I'll work on that later today.  In the meantime, I have two minor points for discussion:
 * In the "Aftermath" section, I've followed your recommendation about combining the paragraphs and removing the in-text attribution to the company's web site. But I'll now make a brief pitch for restoring the in-text attribution.  Although I looked for it, I could find no third-party verification of the company's claims as to the number of assistees and the dollar amounts involved.  Nor is there likely to be any such verification, because the agencies most able to provide it -- the GAO and HUD -- have not performed any post mortem analysis of the entire industry.  So, we are left with the company's own statement.  The statement is plausible (otherwise, I would not have included it).  But still, it comes from the company itself and I think that an in-line caveat will be helpful to the reader.  Of course, a savvy reader can look at the reference and see immediately that the information comes from the company itself.  And so, the caveat is not absolutely necessary and I'll not argue very much about including it.  But I do think it served a useful purpose.
 * In your list, there is still a question mark for "reliable sources". Are there any particular sources that we need to discuss?
 * Thanks again for conducting this review. I look forward to your response.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed response! I left one question mark unchecked in the "reliable sources" criterion as I wasn't sure if the "according to its website" source was a primary source, but your explanation made sense and I see that it is reliable. All of the sources look good now, thanks for clearing that up. The only thing left outstanding is the lead's expansion so that it summarises the article, but once that is out of the way I'll be happy to promote this as I can see the article is well researched and comprehensive. JAG  UAR   13:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph has been expanded. Has it been expanded enough?  NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's looking perfect, ! Thanks for expanding it. The lead now meets WP:LEADLENGTH and summarises the article, so with all of the outstanding issues out of the way I'd say that this meets the GA criteria. Without further ado I'll promote this. It is well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out too. Good work!  JAG  UAR   22:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)