Talk:Beth Hamedrash Hagodol/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Schism section, "In 1859", "In 1872", and "1879" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1859, 1872, and 1879. Same thing in for the Move to current building, Jacob Joseph and Post-Joseph era section.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:
Some of the information in the third section appears to be OR.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
In the Early history section, this ---> "Rejecting the reformist observances of New York's German-Jewish congregations", sounds like POV.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 04:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review. Re: 1a, I've inserted commas as suggested, please let me know if any are missing. Regarding 4, this isn't really a contentious point; German Jews at the time were rapidly moving to Reform, whereas Eastern European Jews resisted it. In any event I've quoted the source directly, is that ok? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you've got them all. Oh, well I to me it sounded POVish, but its fine now. I would like to thank Jayjg for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed it to GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. I've done it elsewhere, but not here yet. Since it was your idea, I leave it to you to do the honors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]