Talk:Encyclopedia of the Central Intelligence Agency/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 00:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt. I will start the review tomorrow. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks very much, and feel free to take your time! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
I have done a wee copy edit; the prose is fine.
B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Sabalos is used as a source, and should therefore not be listed in Further Reading (I have fixed this).
Sourcing:
A. Provides references, with in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
Article is sourced to high quality newspapers and periodicals. None of the sources are available online, so I was unable to check for copyright issues.
B. No original research:
Opinions expressed are those of the sources
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:
Article covers the topics listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, including Background, Content summary, Publication history, Reception. Article is a bit short for a GA but covers all the main points.

Star-Reporter of what city? I assumed Columbia, South Carolina; please fix this if it's wrong.
B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Info box image is properly licensed and scaled to the correct size for non-free use.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Just a couple of minor points, which I have already fixed. Article passes to GA. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]