Talk:Encyclopedia of Chicago/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

1 image: Fair use with good rationale.
Good use of {{Inflation}}
I did some copyedits to clear up some of the language
I made all the 4-digit number consistent per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Delimiting (grouping of digits)
There is no critical reception. The article mentions that reviews of the book were done (ie. WSJ) but doesn't say what the reviewers wrote about it.
- The WSJ link does not actually contain the review. I don't have other online access to it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to cobble together a critical review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks great! --maclean (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]