Talk:Think of the children/GA2

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

Reviewer: Vesuvius Dogg (talk · contribs) 18:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I am again reviewing the article, and. Have made a copyedit, but there are very few (if any) problems with it and I expect to clear it in the next day or two. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much,, most appreciated! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg The biggest problem I've had, quite frankly, is trying to find fault. For a long time I thought having footnotes in the lede might be problematic, but it is not against any specific WP policy and in fact seems necessary to clarify the sourcing. After going carefully through all the GA criteria, I'm inclined to give this article an immediate "pass". Article is well-written, thorough, and very carefully sourced (even if the specific sources are books rather than on-line articles, and I'm unable to perform a copyvio check). Article is neutral, balanced, and (I believe) very helpful to anyone Googling this phrase in search of deeper context, both in philosophical sources and pop cultural precedents. I do not sense there are original research problems; article is now highly stable and without recent edit warring or disputes. Article is very thoughtfully illustrated, something I might have been skeptical about early in this article's life. Here's hoping will make sure I've properly updated the Talk page and that this is now appropriately cleared it from the queue. Good Article, ! Particularly nice to see this after it faced AfD early on. I love rescue stories, they mean so much to the kids here! Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your kind words about my Quality improvement efforts to Think of the children,, it is true that I especially enjoy taking articles to high-levels-of-quality that were previously in danger of being deleted off of the face of Wikipedia. :) Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)