Talk:United States Code Congressional and Administrative News/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is really, really short and doesn't have sections, and I find it very hard to believe it's up to our modern standards, having passed in 2007. The particular criteria it seems to fail are 1b, "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation" (there are no sections) and 3, "Broad in its coverage", I find it hard to believe 242 words are all that can be written. I will, however, embark on a quest to see if there's anything missing. Until then, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've begun to look several times, but try as I might I cannot find anything this article is missing. Aircorn, thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It fails the 1st criteria because it doesn't have a lead (or is all lead depending on how you look at it). That is pretty easy to fix though. If you can't find anything missing then it will pass the broadness criteria. I made some edits to the layout. AIRcorn (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought it looked familiar [1]. Seven years, not sure what that says about me or the process. AIRcorn (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll close this as 'kept' for now, but haven't extensively looked into the subject. It seems to be hovering around the fringes of the GA level, but doing no harm. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)