Talk:Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism/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:
Well done.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the Conferences section, are the links suppose to be like that? Meaning ---> "Nationalism, East and West: Civic and Ethnic Conceptions of Nationhood?"
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):
Is there a source for this ---> "The Association organises and hosts a range of different events at the London School of Economics including lectures, seminars and debates that feature prominent scholars. The Ernest Gellner Nationalism Lecture and the Nations and Nationalism Debate are annual, and a number of smaller seminars are held more frequently throughout the year"?

C. It contains no original research:

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:
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) 04:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1B: I took a look at the MOS and couldn't find directions one way or the other, but I decided to convert the links to footnotes for consistency.
- I was just asking, cause I too was looking if the formats are accepted like that, but never found anything on that. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 04:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2B: Added.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 04:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at it! – SJL 04:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to SJL for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 04:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks again. – SJL 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. I would like a favor, if you can add the article at the GA page, since I don't know what exact category it belongs in, I would appreciate it, as well to promote the article is GA. :) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 05:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, and there really isn't an appropriate category at the moment, so I've made a proposal to create a new sub-category called 'Interdisciplinary' under 'Social sciences and society'. – SJL 16:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]