Talk:The Signpost/GA1

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

Reviewer: Esquivalience (talk · contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review the reliability of the sources first. First note: it may be more useful to link to the permalinks (using Special:Permalink) of the Signpost articles instead of the diffs, which can confuse general readers. (In the GA box below, means unassessed). Esquivalience  t 23:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

✅ 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,, 7-56.
 * 2b (reliable sources)

5,


 * General notes
 * Possible OR and POV: It has garnered generally positive reception from media publications including The New York Times, The Register, Nonprofit Quarterly, and Heise Online. - The Times article only states about The Signpost "Users get news about the site via a mocked-up newspaper called The Wikipedia Signpost". The preceding sentence "Wikipedia has a lot of old-fashioned trappings; in fact, within its borders it generates its own special brand of kitsch" (from the Times article) only notes Wikipedia's eccentricity. The article in The Register mentions The Signpost in neutral terms: "Wikipedia’s own plucky newsletter, Signpost ...". The Nonprofit Quarterly article invites the "techies" to visit Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed for more information, but that does not count as positive reception. I do not understand German, but a machine translation shows no indication of Heise Online positively receiving The Signpost. Esquivalience  t 23:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've converted all those links as you suggested, to permalink. I've also tweaked the lede intro sect to better reflect the corpus of source coverage, at DIFF. Thank you, your recommendations are most helpful, and I think the article looks a bit better for it. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * After doing some copyediting, 1a and 1b is a check, also for 2, no problems with 3a and 3b, 4 is a check, no edit warring or back-and-forth editing, captions and image licenses are OK. Although the prose still appears flaky and bodged in at some points, and the article is a bit too detailed (I'll try to shorten some parts so the article conveys its points succinctly), I'll ✅ pass this as a GA. Esquivalience  t 01:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much ! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)