Talk:Keating Five/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be conducting the GA review of this article, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref 53 (Dobbs) deadlinks

Ref 70 (Clinton Foundation) deadlinks

Please make the way that authors' names are listed consistently. Current some are listed as last name first, others as first name first.

Please make sure references with web links have access dates.

The book references need to be tweaked. The way they are listed now, the full ref for the book is given once, the first time the book is used, and then partial references are used after that. This needs to be changed to either each instance of a book being used having the full reference, or having all of the book information in a separate section and having partial refs for all uses of the books in footnotes. The way it is now, with books going back and forth, makes it harder for readers to find information on individual books, and would make it more likely that something would be missed if this article is rearranged in the future or if information from this article was transfered to other articles. Books that were used in hardcopy and books that were used from Google Books should also be formatted the same, for example #57 and #58 are formatted differently.

I've added a fact tag in one spot where I would like to see a reference.
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):
The photo of Alan Cranston in the lead has a deprecated licensing tag that needs to be checked and changed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, this is a very nice article. There are a few things I would like to see happen with the refs and one image issue that needs to be resolved before I can pass this article to GA status, so I am putting it on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review! I'll be getting to work on all of these items. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment "Please make sure references with web links have access dates," I have a long response. What I have done, in this and other similar articles I've worked on lately, is to only provide access dates for web-only sources and for recent newspaper or magazine sources where the published content on the web may not always be the same as the published content . For many older newspaper or magazine sources, where the online copy exactly matches the print copy, I don't give an access date. That's because there's no need (the source is defined by the print/microfilm version, and still remains as a valid cite even if the online copy goes away or goes behind a pay firewall) but there is a cost (the access dates drive up article size and can be confusing to readers, if they mistake which of the two dates on a cite is the important one). You can read a long discussion thread on this (started by me) at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Retrieval dates for online versions of old printed sources, again. The actual guideline in WP:CITE has been in flux ever since (currently marked as "dubious"), but at that discussion thread, the consensus seemed to be that for established sources like The New York Times (which is the kind of source this Keating Five article uses a lot), "the accessdate is not really needed". So that's how I wrote this, and I hope it's okay with you.

Otherwise, I believe I have now made changes to fully address all of your concerns and comments above; you can look the article over and verify and let me know if you have any additional concerns. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will accept your view on the access dates. Thanks for the other work on the references. I did a bit more tweaking with section names and sequence to make it consistent with MOS. Other than that, everything looks good, so I am going to pass this article to GA status. Nice work on an important article! Dana boomer (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]