Talk:Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC) This article will be reviewed shortly.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to pass a GA nomination the article must meet the following standards:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

1. C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

1. B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer notes: This article is not ready for GA status at this time. Too small an editing history in the last month to see giving a hold with this much work. If editors return and work is accomplished, please resubmit and notify reviewer.

• Lede does not reflect article content well and has repetitive wording.
• Section headers should not reflect the subject per MoS. "Writing the speech" - "Summery of speech" headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated. Other heading are longer than are needed.
• The article misses a major issue, what the speech is about. The "history", "Origin" or "Background" to provide a clear understanding of why the speech was made is missing and should be above all sections.
• There are 30 references in this article...but not a single reference or inline citation in the entire "Summary" section.
• The body of the article suffers from the same repetitive wording of the lede. Use of the same phrases read badly.
• The sections "Domestic response" and "International response" needs copy editing. They are basically lists of reviews separated as individual short paragraphs and require tightening and prose to add context.
• While the article has a few negative mentions, over all it does not read in a neutral manner. Comes across almost idealistic. This may be cleaned up with copy editing and further research.

Overall the prose is quite poor and a great deal of referencing is required. A change in tone to be more neutral and encyclopedic is also very much needed. The fact that the article skips the issue of background or origin concerns me a great deal. This, of course could be linked to the main article on the subject of the speech itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised this article was nominated for GA. I was thinking about renominating for deletion in the future, once the recentism has worn off. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)