Talk:The War Within (Woodward book)/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment
 * 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.

No problems found when checking the quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * It is reasonably well written; however in the Synopsis section there is press comment on the book, e.g. Fox News has described the overall tone of the book towards Bush as "mixed". However, International Herald Tribune reviewer Michiko Kakutani states that it "reaches a damning conclusion about the presidency". Thisd needs to be put in the Reception section. ✅
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * well referenced
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * citations to RS
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * JUst one minor concern mentioned above, on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the amendment. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * JUst one minor concern mentioned above, on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the amendment. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * JUst one minor concern mentioned above, on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the amendment. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you very much for reviewing the article. I agree completely with what you recommended, and I made the change. The Squicks (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)