Talk:Newell Snow Booth/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Whiteguru in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 06:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


Starts GA Review Page. The review will follow the same sections of the Article.   Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

 


Observations edit

   HTML document size: 54 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 10188 B
   References (including all HTML code): 11 kB
   Wiki text: 9143 B
   Prose size (text only): 5047 B (857 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 2804 B
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  • Page layout is fine.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  • 9 citations from Shavit do not give page numbers.
  • 11 citations from General Commission on Archives and History: Archives Center Catalog do not give page numbers. (Some pages extremely difficult to read)
  • The United Methodist Handbook is not a relevant reference.
  • Prominent Personalities in American Methodism gives a snippet view which cannot be reasonably read. It is a mention, only, at best.
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  • It is difficult to ascertain. Only one reference is accessible, and that is difficult to read in places.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  • Page created 1 July 2020
  • Page has 36 edits by 10 editors
  • 90 day page views = 89, average of 1 view daily.
  • DYK on 30 July 2020 brought 2,733 page views
  • Page history shows steady development, no edit warring observed.
  1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  • No images on this page.
  1. Overall:  Fail
  • The references do not conform to WP:VERIFY. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Can't check the major references here. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

 </p