Talk:Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC) This article will be reviewed shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes: This article is not ready for GA status at this time. Too small an editing history in the last month to see giving a hold with this much work. If editors return and work is accomplished, please resubmit and notify reviewer.

Lede does not reflect article content well and has repetitive wording.
Section headers should not reflect the subject per MoS. "Writing the speech" - "Summery of speech" headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated. Other heading are longer than are needed.
The article misses a major issue, what the speech is about. The "history", "Origin" or "Background" to provide a clear understanding of why the speech was made is missing and should be above all sections.
There are 30 references in this article...but not a single reference or inline citation in the entire "Summary" section.
The body of the article suffers from the same repetitive wording of the lede. Use of the same phrases read badly.
The sections "Domestic response" and "International response" needs copy editing. They are basically lists of reviews separated as individual short paragraphs and require tightening and prose to add context.
While the article has a few negative mentions, over all it does not read in a neutral manner. Comes across almost idealistic. This may be cleaned up with copy editing and further research.

Overall the prose is quite poor and a great deal of referencing is required. A change in tone to be more neutral and encyclopedic is also very much needed. The fact that the article skips the issue of background or origin concerns me a great deal. This, of course could be linked to the main article on the subject of the speech itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this article was nominated for GA. I was thinking about renominating for deletion in the future, once the recentism has worn off. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]