Talk:Civilian Public Service/GA3

GA Review #3

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!