Talk:The CIA and September 11/GA1

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

I am conducting a reassessment of this article as part of the GA sweeps process]. [[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No obvious problems checking against GA criteria, proceed to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:46, 26 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

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The artcile is reasonably well written. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * It complies sufficuiently with MoS. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Paragraph #3 of Response needs referencing. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC) ✅ Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * references appaers to be RS and support the statements where verifiable. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * c (OR):
 * No OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * Broad. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (focused):
 * Focussed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Stable
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * one image is used, suitably tagged, with non-free use rationale. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * and suitably captioned. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I would like a reference to the paragraph cited above. On hold whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, all sorted now. Keep GA Status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like a reference to the paragraph cited above. On hold whilst this is addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, all sorted now. Keep GA Status. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference added. It was from the Spiegel article being discussed in the paragraphs above and below - I'd hoped it was fairly obvious it was all coming from the same source, but of course in retrospect it looks a bit like a randomly inserted, uncited paragraph. TheGrappler (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)