Talk:Washington Park Subdivision/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Initial review by
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose needs a good copyedit... I made a few changes, but quite a bit of it is just kind of unclear or the sentence structure is awkward. I'd recommend either going through it line-by-line or making a request at WP:GOCE.
 * I just did a once over.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I'm concerned about the reliability of . It looks like an encyclopedia... a tertiary source, and generally discouraged. If you can find better citations for those points, that would be great. ✅
 * The Encyclopedia of Chicago is an extremely well-accepted source here on WP.  Prairie Avenue and  South Side (Chicago) both rely heavily on it.  I have dozens of GAs that rely on it.  It has never even been questioned before.  Instead of having a few authors and editors each article is compiled by the specialist on that topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay; sounds good. I just hadn't heard of it before and it had "Encyclopedia" in the name, so I just wondered about reliability. Anyway, consider this resolved. :) -Drilnoth (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It seems focused mostly on pre 1948. Washington Park has history 1948 to now. The 60s produced notable activists and leaders through churches and TWO (which is where I had contact). Maybe the title could have added  "the Early Years" or similar to accurately describe the scope of the article.  I'd love to see a follow on article that describes it when I've known it.
 * 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:
 * I'm putting this review on hold for seven days for copyediting. Overall, I found the article to be nicely written and comprehensive, with good sourcing.
 * I'm passing this now; the copyedit resolved most of my concerns. Good work, and I hope all goes well on the Good topic! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm putting this review on hold for seven days for copyediting. Overall, I found the article to be nicely written and comprehensive, with good sourcing.
 * I'm passing this now; the copyedit resolved most of my concerns. Good work, and I hope all goes well on the Good topic! -Drilnoth (talk) 03:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)