Talk:The Pennsylvania Society/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 5 December 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):
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:

Specific concerns

General:
- ~~Is there meant to be two external links sections? Or do you mean for the first one to be a "further reading" section? If it's not meant to be a further reading section, they need to be combined.~~

- Are we covering the Society? Or the event? If we're truly covering both together (which makes sense) we need to hear more about significant events in the past. We stop talking about history in 1903, basically, until we reach 2003 and afterwards. This is a big glaring gap in coverage. Surely someone important attended. Who were the political appointees made in the past? Was it ever involved in a scandal? As the article stands right now, it's got a severe case of WP:Recentism
- Who is the leadership/etc of the society? Any notable leaders of the society in the past? I see the quote about Fricks and Carnegies and Pews, were they involved in the society in the past? Who else of historical note?
Lead:
- ~~Give a date for the "Gilded Age" as you don't want your readers to have to click away from your article.~~
Origins:
- "The tradition for Pennsylvania's political and business retreat dates to 1899.." is awkward, suggest rewording somewhat.
This is going to be a lot of work to bring up to a standard that is "broad in its coverage" which is one of the standards of the GA criteria. It's entirely too focused on recent (within the last 6 years) events, and does not give any coverage at all to historical development and events from 1903 to about 2003. I'm not going to fail the article right now, but I cannot pass it with such a glaring ommission, so I'm putting it on hold. As long as work is being done, I don't have a problem extending the hold past the normal 7 days, but progress does need to be made.
- How is this going? I'm not seeing much work being done here...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since I've heard nothing in almost two days after my last note here, I'm failing this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]