Talk:Stewards Society/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a fun one, comments should be done by the end of the day. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Well-written
The drama, the intrigue, I can't lie this was quite entertaining! I did a hefty copyedit (which, by the way, watch out for "would" being used for past tense). Otherwise, I have surprisingly little to say:
 * Revisit the infobox, namely the "Legal status" and "Purpose" paramaters


 * Perhaps link "service fraternity" instead of just "fraternity"


 * The name collectively refers to a handful of loosely organizationally tied groups that have existed since the Stewards Society's founding in the 1980s — perhaps: "that have existed since the First Stewards Society", as otherwise, it's a bit self-referential.


 * The White Rose was loosely compared to Steward Throat — by who?

Verifiable with no original research
A variety of reliable local papers are used, student papers are sometimes used as sources, but this is okay per WP:RSSM. No copyvio issues during my spot-check, paraphrasing is used well, and Earwig shows a solid score of 24%, namely to attributed quotes and long titles.
 * Thanks!!


 * Consider removing or re-sourcing Higher Ed Dive. It's a publication of Industry Dive, which is already of unknown reliability. However, it's use is quite minor, and relativitely uncontroversial, so I'll leave this as a suggestion


 * More of a priority, could you mention the "Society of Stewards" in the body, as it is currently only in the infobox?
 * ✅, that was some damage left by a vandal a long while ago. I suspect it was a Steward (Probably not but I can dream.)
 * ah, why am I not surprised. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

 * Can't find the "undertones of conservative religiousness, and.. anti-modern(ism)" quote, but looks good otherwise.
 * Oops, dropped a source on accident. ✅
 * Oops, dropped a source on accident. ✅


 * Looks good
 * Looks good


 * They never explicitely say that the plaque contained the logo, just that the logo could be seen in the corner of their paperwork. Looks good otherwise.
 * Clarified, added an additional source to fix this. ✅
 * Clarified, added an additional source to fix this. ✅


 * Looks good alongside The Post
 * Looks good alongside The Post


 * Looks good
 * Looks good

Broad in its coverage
I don't have much to say here, a look at Google News shows that everything major is in use. I couldn't find anything in Newspapers.com, nor in any books, except for a mention in Facing Georgetown's History. The Hoya has done a lot of coverage, but I'm comfortable with how it's limited to only when necessary. This Esquire article could be a lighthearted add to the "Reception" section, but I wouldn't call it critical.
 * ✅, added a little blurb

Neutral
A touchy subject, but I believe the article does a nice job at attributing the exposés and presenting the responses.

Stable
No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated
The two keys are symbolic of the society and are your own work. I don't think we could get many more images than that.

Summary
courtesy ping, what an interesting rabbit hole! Great work so far. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * oh, and please go at your own pace! we have lots of time to close out the review. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Averageuntitleduser, thanks for the review!! I've been busy these last few days and will likely get to it tomorrow evening. I glad you liked it though, it was a fun article to write. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 04:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Averageuntitleduser, should be everything. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 00:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the fixes (and the addition). I'm now happy to pass this article, well done! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)