Talk:Sylvia Mendez/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

I will do the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative article about a little known, but supremely important case that truly paved the way for Brown. I'm glad I read this article. Here are a few thoughts I had:

The Lead is a little weak. See WP:Lead for requirements for the lead. There needs to be a summary of every point brought up in the article. Please expand the lead to address information from each section.
The Fair use rationale for the image needs to be formatted better. See Fair use templates that can be used to organize and provide more information about the use of the photo.
What I find interesting is that there is no article for her parents, who obviously had to do the tough and expensive legal work that made the court case. Not to diminish her bravery and the obstacles she faced but it's unfortunate that there aren't articles about her mom and dad.
There is an article about the case and that should be put in as a main article under the Mendez vs. Westminster case section. There is also an article on the PBS documentary that should go under the legacy section (probably as a see also).
I put a ^[vague] template in the Aftermath section after the first sentence. Can this be clarified? At least specify that this was in the United States.
Two links are not good in the references section. #8 is an updated website that doesn't refer (as far as I can tell) to the information referred to in the link. # 11 is a dead link, that has been tagged as such and needs to be fixed.

Overall I think it's a strong article. Please look at this suggestions to clean up so that it meets the current GA Criteria. I will hold the article for one week pending work and notify all interested projects and editors. If you have any questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hold time is up but I feel as though the article would not take a lot of work to keep at GA standards. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do the work. I will hold the article a little longer in the hopes that the work can be done. H1nkles (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that these concerns have not been addressed I will delist the article. Please consider working on the article and renominating. H1nkles (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]