Talk:Cyber Rights/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello :) We'll begin ASAP! Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice article! Just a few issues to deal with:

• How about moving Godwin's pic up to the Author section?

• In Contents, the paragraph "Subsequent chapters bring up possible contraindications to broad free speech online, including: defamation, sexual harassment, copyright, and issues involving privacy. These are dismissed as being important over and above the value of freedom of speech."; clarify the sentence "These are dismissed as being important over and above the value of freedom of speech.". It reads as if the idea that the "contraindications" importance "over and above the value of freedom of speech" is being negated. :)

• Also, the segment "The Supreme Court of the United States held two contested sections of the CDA as unconstitutional, and Godwin recounts how he cried during the writing of a speech intended for a rally in San Francisco to honor the occasion."; clarify. Did Godwin cry because he was moved in agreement with the finding that the CDA sections were unconstitutional, or because he was angry that the speech was intended to honor the occasion of the CDA's passage? Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for doing the GA Review. I will make appropriate changes to the article, and note updates. -- Cirt (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

1.  Done, moved Godwin's pic up to the Author section.
2.  Done, copyedited this sentence, made this more clear.
3.  Done, copyedited this sentence, made this more clear.

Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice! And since that's all I found to toy with: we pass0rz! Good working w you, albeit brief :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article [[]] passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass