GA Review #3

edit

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

Please consider addressing the remaining issues and pursuing FAC for this article. It's informative, educational, and well-researched.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Generally good prose, although certain usages (e.g. "Friends" to refer to members of the Society of Friends) might be a bit obscure for readers not familiar with those usages. Do have a copyeditor unfamiliar with such work through the article before an FAC.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Almost every paragraph has a citation, and the most contentious assertions are cited well, but it's going to need better citations for FA. I generally use books with {{cite book}} sans page numbers and then use {{rp}} to indicate page numbers, but I don't think the way you've done it violates the MOS--and certainly not the GA MOS standards.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    Great work. If there's one thing more that this article COULD cover, it's what happened to the 1 in 8 who eventually transferred from CPS to the military.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    No issues.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
    If anything, it's been neglected!
  6. 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):  
    File:CPS31snow.jpg is a bit hard to understand at its thumbnail resolution. Consider enlarging it.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    A few minor issues remain, but not sufficient to preclude GA recognition. Congratulations!