Talk:Citizens' Councils/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 17:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC) I'm no expert in this subject, but this looks like an interesting article, and I'd be happy to review it for you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally good, but could do with a few improvements to better fit Wikipedia's standards. For instance "the influence of the WCC had waned considerably" doesn't really need the "had". In another instance, it states "that school segregation was unconstitutional" but those unfamiliar with the U.S. civil rights movement might not be aware what form of segregation that was; you must clarify that it is racial. Assume that your readership knows nothing about U.S. history.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section could do with being more comprehensive; it does not for instance state the name of the founder, and in the first sentence notes when the Council was founded, but is not clear if it is currently active. Other problems here include the "School segregation and the demise of the councils" section, where sentences are left isolated, and could be brought together under a single paragraph.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Some sentences do not have references; either references need to be found for these statements, or they will have to be expunged.
	2b. 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).	In instances such as the following "Numan Bartley wrote, "In Louisiana the Citizens' Council organization began as (and to a large extent remained) a projection of the Joint Legislative Committee to Maintain Segregation."[19]", Wikipedia policy means that we should not use direct quotations, but rather summarise what the author has said.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are a few unreferenced sentences; are these original research ?
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	There's been some good work done here so far, but it's not quite GA quality. I'm putting it temporarily on hold, so that the nominator can make the sufficient changes needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No changes to the article since the review, so closing. Wizardman 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)