Talk:Summerhill (book)/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll try my best to complete the review in a couple of days. -The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status – Review Criteria   		A good article is—  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

</ol>

Review

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion
The article is a cool one and fine. But here some points of concern:
 * It is known for introducing his ideas to the American public. It was published in America on November 7, 1960, by the Hart Publishing Company and later revised as Summerhill School: A New View of Childhood in 1993. could be merged..-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the review! Could me merged how? czar ⨹   17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * History section could be better be called as background section instead. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✓ done czar ⨹   17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we have any template to be transcribed at the bottom? -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a navbox? No, the topic group is too small: the school, Neill, and the book. I'm looking into another option... czar ⨹   17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A slight expansion in legacy and you are done. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What aspects are not covered in the current Legacy section? I believe Bailey is the best overview available. czar ⨹   17:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Result
The article is passed the GA review. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 07:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)