Talk:Not in Front of the Children/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 04:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Cirt, this article definitely looks like it is very close to GA status. I will review this article ASAP and will have my comments and suggestions available to you in the next few days. This is my third GA review, so I appreciate your patience with me throughout this process. Thank you for all your incredible work in researching and writing this article. -- Caponer (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Cirt, I've reviewed and re-reviewed this article several times, and I find that it meets all the above criteria for GA status. Frankly, I'd go as far as saying that this article actually exceeds GA criteria. I commend you for taking the complex topic of the history of censorship analyzed in Heins' book, and summarizing it succinctly while providing the necessary background and context for Heins' arguments. Before passing it, I do have two comments/questions. As I stated above, this article is my third GA review, so please let me know if you have any comments or concerns regarding this review. -- Caponer (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Even though the table utilized under the Awards subsection is standard for book articles, I wonder if it's necessary here given there is only one award. Would it work if the contents of the table were modified to a prose format instead? You may also be able to provide more context regarding the significance of the award, and why this book was chosen to receive it. At Eli M. Oboler Memorial Award website, it states that the award "is presented for the best published work in the area of intellectual freedom" and perhaps you can pull select information from the award's criteria. The Idaho State University source also shares this description. This is merely a suggestion, and I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this is necessary or will work.
- The Meese Report is mentioned in the article's lead and under the Content summary section, with an image of the actual bound report. It may be helpful for readers if a brief one sentence summary of the Meese Report could be given to provide context. Perhaps in a way similar to your explanation of the Comstock laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caponer (talk • contribs)
- Thanks very much, Caponer, for this GA Review. I agree with all your comments. I'll respond to them soon, and note back here how I've addressed them. Shouldn't be too much time. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Response to GA Review
- Done. Merged Awards table in with rest of Reception section. Converted to prose format. Added info about nature of award itself.
- Done. Added some brief background info about the Meese Report, similar to what I'd previously added for context for the reader about the Comstock laws.
Hopefully this is helpful, — Cirt (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Cirt, you've sufficiently addressed both of the above comments/suggestions and the edits to the article look great! Once again, this article is a job well done, and it was a pleasure to review. Pass! -- Caponer (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the kind words about my quality improvement efforts, — Cirt (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
- Cirt, you've sufficiently addressed both of the above comments/suggestions and the edits to the article look great! Once again, this article is a job well done, and it was a pleasure to review. Pass! -- Caponer (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)