Talk:Rumsfeld Commission/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Projects and major contributors have been notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written, I made some copy-edits to satisfy these requirements.

#:: I feel that the lead should be expanded somewhat to fully summarise the article as per WP:LEAD

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

#:: One dead link (ref #21 [1]) has been tagged.

1. One statement: North Korea launched their Taepodong-1, modeled on the Scud missile highlighted in the report, on August 31 in what they described as a satellite launch. However, US intelligence determined the attempt was a failure. needs a citation.

   It would be helpful to have an EL to the actual report, which I assume is available on-line, this is not a GA requirement however.

   I assume good faith for off-line sources.

   Other references check out and are WP:RS

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. 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):

   OK

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

7. :On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   OK, just the lead to be addressed, as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

   OK, keep GA status, thanks for the hard work that has gone into this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive critique! I'm sorry not to have kept this more updated since it was created. So far I believe I addressed many of the major things you noted; over the coming days I'll see what more can be done (will add cite templates all around), and I'll try to get a hold of the main book source to see if I missed anything from first round. Joshdboz (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)