Talk:The Signpost/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Esquivalience (talk · contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the reliability of the sources first. First note: it may be more useful to link to the permalinks (using Special:Permalink) of the Signpost articles instead of the diffs, which can confuse general readers. (In the GA box below, means unassessed). Esquivalience ^t 23:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

2b (reliable sources)

Y 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,^[a], 7-56.

Y 5,^[b]

N

^ Daily Mail-style title, but source is OK.
^ Blog. However, I'll accept this because there seems to be at least a basic level of factchecking (with their 30 employees), and the statements it supports are unlikely to be challenged.

General notes

Possible OR and POV: It has garnered generally positive reception from media publications including The New York Times, The Register, Nonprofit Quarterly, and Heise Online. - The Times article only states about The Signpost "Users get news about the site via a mocked-up newspaper called The Wikipedia Signpost". The preceding sentence "Wikipedia has a lot of old-fashioned trappings; in fact, within its borders it generates its own special brand of kitsch" (from the Times article) only notes Wikipedia's eccentricity. The article in The Register mentions The Signpost in neutral terms: "Wikipedia’s own plucky newsletter, Signpost ...". The Nonprofit Quarterly article invites the "techies" to visit Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-03/Op-ed for more information, but that does not count as positive reception. I do not understand German, but a machine translation shows no indication of Heise Online positively receiving The Signpost. Esquivalience ^t 23:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquivalience:I've converted all those links as you suggested, to permalink. I've also tweaked the lede intro sect to better reflect the corpus of source coverage, at DIFF. Thank you, your recommendations are most helpful, and I think the article looks a bit better for it. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some copyediting, 1a and 1b is a check, also for 2, no problems with 3a and 3b, 4 is a check, no edit warring or back-and-forth editing, captions and image licenses are OK. Although the prose still appears flaky and bodged in at some points, and the article is a bit too detailed (I'll try to shorten some parts so the article conveys its points succinctly), I'll Y pass this as a GA. Esquivalience ^t 01:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much ! — Cirt (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Daily Mail-style title, but source is OK.

[2] Blog. However, I'll accept this because there seems to be at least a basic level of factchecking (with their 30 employees), and the statements it supports are unlikely to be challenged.

[a]

[b]