Talk:Cooper Review

Image

Can you get something a bit higher res? While fair use images should be low resolution, they needn't be blurry. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cooper Review/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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 issue of the names in the second paragraph of the history section is a little confusing. I wonder if it could be tweaked to make it clearer. It looks as though it's called the Cooper Review, not The Cooper Review, according to its website [1] and secondary sources, e.g. [2] The image of the front page also doesn't show a "the," so I would remove that and move the title. I would move into either the lead or the top of the history section (or both) that it's the oldest surviving business in Delta County, along with the J.F. Henslee Hardware Store.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article goes into quite a bit of detail about minor issues, e.g. "Originally after purchasing the paper, [the owners] hired Roger Palmer its publisher, editor, and advertising director.[2] However, Jim Butler replaced Palmer as the publisher and advertising director." At the same time there isn't much about the newspaper: any interesting stories it has covered, difficulties, disputes, reputation, role in local life? It would be worth looking around to see what other sources there are. The newspaper itself can be used as a primary source within reason.
	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.	Short and sweet is sometimes appropriate, but I wonder if this is missing some information. Putting it on hold to give the author/nominator, Awardgive, some more time to check. There has been no response from the nominator, so I'm not able to pass the article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cooper Review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212121649/http://texaspress.com/index.php/services/newspaper-search to http://www.texaspress.com/index.php/services/newspaper-search

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)