Talk:WSJ Magazine/GA1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs) →Good article nomination on hold: update progress |
m ClydeFranklin moved page Talk:WSJ./GA1 to Talk:WSJ Magazine/GA1: Moved per Talk:WSJ.#Requested move 25 April 2023 using rmCloser |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:'''1. Well written?:''' A few run-on sentences and misuse of fragments/commas, etc. Some sentences could be copyedited/broken apart a bit. The very first sentence of the article is one example. The [[WP:LEAD]] is not really a summary of the entire article itself, rather it's just a few sentences about the magazine. |
:'''1. Well written?:''' A few run-on sentences and misuse of fragments/commas, etc. Some sentences could be copyedited/broken apart a bit. The very first sentence of the article is one example. The [[WP:LEAD]] is not really a summary of the entire article itself, rather it's just a few sentences about the magazine. |
||
::I think I got them all.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''2. Factually accurate?:''' Duly cited throughout. One minor thing, one redlink among the cites, that could be fixed. Passes here. |
:'''2. Factually accurate?:''' Duly cited throughout. One minor thing, one redlink among the cites, that could be fixed. Passes here. |
||
::Got it.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
::Got it.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' Not thorough. What about how the magazine was initially received? Success in sales? Was the first issue critiqued by other journalists? Praised? There should be at least a whole subsection discussing this. |
:'''3. Broad in coverage?:''' Not thorough. What about how the magazine was initially received? Success in sales? Was the first issue critiqued by other journalists? Praised? There should be at least a whole subsection discussing this. |
||
::It was essentially given away so sales is not a significant factor here. Journalistic content was not critiqued as much as the business model. I have added information to that effect.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 00:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''4. Neutral point of view?:''' Appears to be written from a neutral perspective. Passes here. |
:'''4. Neutral point of view?:''' Appears to be written from a neutral perspective. Passes here. |
||
:'''5. Article stability?''' No issues at all in the article history or talk page. Passes here. |
:'''5. Article stability?''' No issues at all in the article history or talk page. Passes here. |
||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
<p>Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|reviewed again]]. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article '''''may be failed without further notice'''''. Thank you for your work so far.<!-- Template:GANOH --> '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 07:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
<p>Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|reviewed again]]. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article '''''may be failed without further notice'''''. Thank you for your work so far.<!-- Template:GANOH --> '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 07:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
===Reevaluation=== |
|||
GA passed. Nice work {{user|TonyTheTiger}}. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 14:30, 2 May 2023
GA Review
[edit]Good article nomination on hold
[edit]This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 26, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: A few run-on sentences and misuse of fragments/commas, etc. Some sentences could be copyedited/broken apart a bit. The very first sentence of the article is one example. The WP:LEAD is not really a summary of the entire article itself, rather it's just a few sentences about the magazine.
- I think I got them all.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout. One minor thing, one redlink among the cites, that could be fixed. Passes here.
- Got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Not thorough. What about how the magazine was initially received? Success in sales? Was the first issue critiqued by other journalists? Praised? There should be at least a whole subsection discussing this.
- It was essentially given away so sales is not a significant factor here. Journalistic content was not critiqued as much as the business model. I have added information to that effect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written from a neutral perspective. Passes here.
- 5. Article stability? No issues at all in the article history or talk page. Passes here.
- 6. Images?: One image used, fair use rationale provided on the image page. Passes here.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Reevaluation
[edit]GA passed. Nice work TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)