Talk:Philadelphia nativist riots/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Philadelphia Nativist Riots/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:


 * I believe I fixed the above items. About the men in point 4, the sources do not indicate whether they are nativists or who they are affiliated with at all. I tried to make it as clear as the known facts allowed. Medvedenko (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Fixed Medvedenko (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * 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:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * 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:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:


 * Fixed all issues here.Medvedenko (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

That is all for now. This article is very close to GA, just a few items to clear up. Note - this is my first GA review. Mitico (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I attempted to remove my comment regarding "mantle." It is still appearing.  Please disregard.  Mitico (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I have resolved all your issues. In regards to your question about the ref for "The riots had gained national attention and condemnation." You can actually see that book on Google Books here. I'd appreciate to see if you feel that statement is appropriately supported by the source or if it should be better clarified. Thanks for the review, this was a much better review than what I gave as my first GA review. Medvedenko (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This cite is right on. Any further comment or clarification is unnecessary and might go off-topic. I think as stated is accurate.  (I didn't realize Google books was such a resource!)

With the changes implemented by Medvedenko, I believe this article passes GA. This is a well written and referenced article. The only comment not addressed was 1A)#5 regarding stoned vs. stones thrown at them. Since this is a minor nuance (& maybe just my preference) I am now promoting to GA.  Mitico (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)