Talk:Reconstruction Amendments/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mz7 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think this needs to be a quick fail. I understand that most of the article was pulled from the lead sections of the articles of each amendment (Talk:Reconstruction Amendments#Expansion). Although lead sections on Wikipedia do not necessarily need to be cited, this is because the information is presumably verifiable later on in the body (MOS:LEADCITE). In this case, however, because the body of the article consists of such summaries, we will need to go in and provide citations for all statements that aren't immediately obvious to a lay reader (I think this is particularly important considering Wikipedia's global readership). Because the majority of the article lacks citations, in my view this is a long way from fulfilling the verifiability criterion of the good article criteria. Generally, I think the content in the article is sufficiently detailed that it probably already passes the broadness criterion, and at a first glance I don't see any glaring issues with the actual prose. After the article is more reliably sourced, I would encourage this to come back to GAN for further review. Mz7 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]