Talk:Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan/GA1

GA Review

Hello, I will be reviewing this article for GA grading. Thanks!--Finalnight (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The article is well written and easy to read.

   B. MoS compliance:

   It meets MOS standards. My only comment would be that the article appears slightly overlinked. However, this is a subjective guideline and the issue is not blantant.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Fully referenced

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The vast majority of references are primary community-recognized reliable sources

   C. No original research:

   I found no original research in my review of the article.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The article is appropriately broad in coverage of its subject material.

   B. Focused:

   The article shows sufficient detail where and when it is warranted.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   This is the only criteria that is giving me pause. The article shows an overly strong positive bias towards its subject matter. I noticed some emotional language being used as well such as usage of the word gently and the emotional terms "A poignant moment" and "final journey home" among others. Also, there was selective inclusion of emotion-laden quotes from mourners. The section on negative reaction to the death and state funeral was limited to only the media's reaction.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Pretty stable overall.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   All images were properly tagged.

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

   Images and captions were used in this article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am placing this on hold to have this article given a more neutral tone and pov. Thanks for the work you have done so far and best of luck in your improvements!

--Finalnight (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review. So it seems that you feel that the article does not fully comply with NPOV standards. Let me give the article a thorough look over and copyedit, hopefully rewording and restructuring problematic areas. Then let's see where we stand after that. Fair enough? Thanks again, Happyme22 (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!--Finalnight (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! Okay, I've run through it, keeping in ming your suggestions above. Does it look better? And if not, could you provide specific areas that you feel need improvement to get the article to GA? Of course the media comments section could use expansion to include quotes from the general public, but I don't feel that it is holding the article back from becoming GA. I think one of the biggest problems is that pretty much all of the media coverage was deferential to Reagan because he had just died, focusing on the positive aspects of his life and of the funeral itself. I will make some more attempts, though. Happyme22 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I've now added some additional critical comments from the public and retitled the last section to reflect such. Happyme22 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I did some cleanup on top of your changes and it looks ready to go now.--Finalnight (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks for all your suggestions and help! Happyme22 (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)