Login
Login

Talk:Interim Committee/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Interim Committee/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Interim Committee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  2. :A. Prose quality: {{GAList/check|y}}
  3. ::"Later it advised on legislation" - comma after later {{tick}}
  4. ::"The final draft of his speech was handed to President Truman at the Potsdam "->" The final draft of President Truman's speech was handed to him at the Potsdam " - pronoun antecedent {{tick}}
  5. ::"the preparation of press releases for the President and the Secretary of War " - was it a press release or a speech? Why don't you call it a "prepared statement" and use that phrase consistently? "Press releases" plural implies separate ones for the Prez and the SecWar. Was it one or two?
  6. :::There were two. Inserted "separate". The practice at the time was for press releases to be read out aloud at a press conference, and copies distributed. {{tick}}
  7. ::"August 6, Truman announced that:"->"August 6, Truman released the prepared statement which said in part that:" {{tick}}
  8. ::"Bush, Conant and Irvin Stewart had produced a proposal for legislation to control nuclear energy in July 1944."->" in July 1944, before the Committee formed, Bush, Conant and Irvin Stewart had produced an outline for proposed legislation to control nuclear energy." {{tick}}
  9. ::"He submitted the proposals" - who is he? {{tick}} Conant. Oops. Added.
  10. ::" introduced into the Senate legislation for an alternative atomic energy bill,"->" introduced an alternative Senate bill on atomic energy," {{tick}}
  11. ::::Not to be picky, but it was an alternative bill, not an alternative type of atomic energy.
  12. ::"even though the War Department bill was primarily a civilian bill as well."->"even though the May-Johnson bill also included primarily civilian control as well." {{tick}} re-worded.
  13. ::
  14. :B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
  16. :A. References to sources: {{GAList/check|y}}
  17. :B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
  18. ::
  19. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
  20. ::
  21. Is it broad in its coverage?
  22. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|y}}
  23. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|y}}
  24. ::
  25. Is it neutral?
  26. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
  27. ::
  28. Is it stable?
  29. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
  30. :: {{#if:No edit wars.|No edit wars.|}}
  31. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
  32. :A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: {{GAList/check|y}}
  33. ::
  34. :B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
  35. ::
  36. Overall:
  37. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
  38. ::This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  39. :::It was a joint work by myself and User:Cuppysfriend. All the prose quality issues seem to be in my half... I think all the concerns have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please take another look at "alternative atomic energy" discussed above and we are done. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on another good article. Racepacket (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)