Talk:Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   I hope you don't mind I did some copy edits to simplify the language in a couple of spots.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead is a bit short compared to the size of the article and does not cover all the main points. Material could be drawn from the content summary and the impact section Y

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   Material is sourced, citations are uniformly formatted using citation templates. No technical errors were found. Checklinks and Reflinks found no problems

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   Cited sources are high quality news sources and journal articles. Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing

   C. No original research:

   All opinions expressed are those of the cited sources; no OR found

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   All main points for books are covered (author, summary of contents, style/genre [covered by the reviews], impact, pub. history, reception)

   B. Remains focused:

3. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I have placed the article on hold for a week to address the one issue: the lead needs to be beefed up a bit as it does not presently cover all the main points addressed in the article. Very nice job Cirt, an interesting and informative article. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much Diannaa for doing the review, I will respond to this soon and note it back here. — Cirt (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay Diannaa I've expanded the lede/intro sect per your recommendation, above, perhaps you could have another look? — Cirt (talk) 22:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's great. Thanks for responding so quickly. The article has now passed to GA class. Good job -- Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)