Talk:No Man Knows My History/GA1

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

I am reassessing this articles GA status as part of the WP:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment o problems when checking against quick fail criteria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.. ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * meets the criteria Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * The first section, Overview should be split. Biographical details of Fawn McKay Brodie should be separated from the overview of the work. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Overview: Is all of the first paragraph correctly cited by the citation at the end? Brodie finally completed her biography of Joseph Smith in 1944, and it was published the following year by Knopf when Brodie was only thirty. needs a citation. Is all of the 3rd paragraph cited by the reference at the end?
 * Influence: Is all of the second paragraph correctly cited by the citation at the end? ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes.--John Foxe (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * I have to assume good faith for all of the references. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * No OR Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * appears to be reasonably broad Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * and focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Follows NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Appears stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * tagged and fair use rationale appended Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Caption could be improved. recent edition is a little vague. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC) ✅. OK keep as GA, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC) ✅. OK keep as GA, thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)