Talk:Millennium '73/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

I will be reviewing this page shortly. Ricardiana (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Well, this article has been the subject of a surprising amount of controversy. I'll do my best.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose quality seems fine.

B. MoS compliance:
Seems OK.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Very impressive number of sources, from newspapers as well as books and articles. Solid.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Article cites sources well for the most part. I suggest adding some more; for example, in the lead it's mentioned that "notable journalists" attended - such as? Just one name would be helpful (preferably to someone who has a page on Wikipedia that could be linked to). Also, it's stated that "the event was later described" as x, y, and z - a citation, or several if necessary, seems called for there.

C. No original research:
OK here.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Indeed. It's a pretty sweeping article.

B. Focused:
Despite the sweep of the article, it seems to be only as broad as needed for purposes of context. Since I don't know anything about the subject, I found the background info on Hans Jayanti, etc., to be very helpful in understanding the topic.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Seems so to me.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Despite some bickering over whose edits are helpful, blah blah, the article seems pretty stable and recent battles have been over things like paraphrasing vs. direct quoting - not over content, it seems.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Yes, two helpful pics are provided.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass