Talk:The Demands of Liberal Education/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have the full review within a day. Thanks. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status – Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments and discussion

...book by Meira Levinson that... could be changed to ...book by an American author Meira Levinson that... or the like. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor Dab Fixes required. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term citizenry could be better explained. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third para of summary section needs a bit more trims ti remove the repeated ..argues that... -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to leave a redlink of Meira Levinson anywhere in the article. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any info on the discussion of the book in American Philosophical Association's 2002 annual meeting will do, but good. I mean, you can say what they said and reviewed and commented and the like. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far. I believe the above have been addressed. I think declaring Levinson an author would be redundant, since she wrote the book, and I'm not sure it's relevant that she's American unless it's suggested for some reason in some style guide section. "Citizenry" is used in a straightforward manner as "subjects of the state", but if it still appears as jargon, I can put that phrase in a parenthetical. I don't believe Meira Levinson passes the general notability guideline or WP:SCHOLAR quite yet, so I didn't redlink her. I don't have details from the APA 2002 meeting past the published proceedings, though I elaborated a bit more from that document. czar ⨹ 09:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result

The article passed the GA review to fetch a GA status. All looks good and meets all the criterion for a GA. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]