Talk:Conspiracy Encyclopedia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to take on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First reading

Leaving the lead for the time being, to be returned to later:

The article plunges straight in by mentioning "Thom Burnett". Who is he? What are his qualifications for writing the introduction? Did he select the contents and contributors?
It doesn't take long to read the article, as it is very short. There is no harm in this, but looking at the lead now, I see things included there which are not in the main body of the text. In particular, information on the book's publication and the contributors should be in the main text, not just the lead. This MoS page states that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by GA Nominator: Thanks very much to Cwmhiraeth for taking on the GA Review ! You raised some good recommendations, and I've taken them to heart. I added info to the body text content, and added a bit more info on the author in a new sect, Background. Hopefully this is now satisfactory, — Cirt (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose, grammar, structure and layout.
The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
The article has been expanded by addition of a "Background" section as suggested above. It covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
The article is neutral.
The article is stable.
The single image is an image of the book cover and is used for commentary and identification purposes. It is relevant, has a suitable caption and a fair use rationale.

Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]