Talk:Temple Sinai (Oakland, California)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the Early years section, "By 1876", "In 1881", "In 1885", "by 1886", and "in 1891" it would be best if there was a comma placed after 1876, 1881, 1885, 1886, 1891. Same thing for the Friedlander era: 1893–1915, Franklin, Coffee and Stern eras: 1917–1965, Broude era: 1966–1989, and Chester era: 1989–present sections.
    Check. Also, User:clariosophic makes a good point about "formally"/"formerly" for the First Hebrew Congregation of Oakland, which would have to be fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was a good point. I've clarified that now in the text, and added a source backing it up. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. 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:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. 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):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
  7. 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) 03:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I believe I've inserted all the necessary commas now, please let me know if I've missed any. Jayjg (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank Jayjg for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, because I have gone off and passed it to GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]