Talk:Chicago Options Associates/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Beagel (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC) I'm going to review this GA nom. I hope to provide my feedback in coming days. Beagel (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much, feel free to take your time. — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• FYI: This article has had a helpful copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. My thanks to Miniapolis for helping out with this. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

On hold. The issue of the article's coverage needs clarification. Otherwise, good work.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   About half of the article is about the Illinois Supreme Court case while any other information about the company and its activities is rather limited. I could be more balanced if the article is expanded by other company-related information. It could be, of course, the the company is mainly notable for this court case (in addition to hiring Jimbo) but in this case the focus and title of the article should be used. It is also unclear what is the current status of this company. At the same time, the paragraph about Bomis and the Wikimedia Foundation probably does not belong here as this is not about the company and should be covered in other relevant articles which exist.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. After considering your answer, I think there is no problem.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Beagel (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Beagel, for the review. Basically my response is that this article utilizes the full corpus of references out there that cover this company and topic. I'd rather not remove any sourced information. However, it is indeed true that more additional information can be found in other articles. But I think this article should be a one-stop-shop for readers that wish to find all information out there about this company as reflected in references. In the course of my research, I haven't come across any other references. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

After considering your answer, I think that the article passes GA criteria. Good work. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)