Talk:Operation USA

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Operation USA/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial review by Dbiel

I have taken some time to review the article and made some minor edits in the process. The article looks fairly good to me, but I do not consider myself a qualifed reviewer; but I will make two suggestions in the following subsections, References and Closing Section. I found the article to be very informative and well documented. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes:

  1. It is—
         * (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
         * (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details;
         * (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
         * (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
         * (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
         * (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
         * (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
         * (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
  3. Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I believe the article now fits these criteria. Wattssw (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

References

The retrieved dates used in the references need to be changed to proper format to avoid red links. Day and Month must be in two digit format so 2008-6-6 needs to be changed to 2008-06-06 Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I used Cntrl + F to find all the dates and added 0's where needed. Wattssw (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Closing Section

I would recommend adding a closing section to wrap up the article, but after looking as some featured articles, this may not be required. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any place where a conclusion is given as part of a good or featured article, so I don't think its necessary. Wattssw (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC) Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 74.62.31.146

I am changing the following edits made by you (please use a sign up and login; you only think there is anonymity on Wikipedia) to preserve the integrity of this article. Feel free to discuss changes on this Talk page:

1) Your change of founder to founders is not recognized by Wikipedia; using founders makes the whole line absent from the infobox.

2) Your addition of a Julie Andrews to the list of staff. Andrews was already listed making this a duplicate, the addition was not clickable, and was not formatted correctly.

3) Your addition of "disaster relief" to the focus is fine. I have added made this clickable, added an uppercase D and a comma after relief to match format standards.

4) Your change of "OPUSA had a revenue of over $18 million in fiscal year 2006 and has shipped over $250 million worth of "high-priority medical, nutritional and shelter supplies" since its inception." to "OPUSA had a revenue of over $21 million in fiscal year 2007 and has shipped over $300 million worth of "high-priority medical, nutritional and shelter supplies" since its inception." has to be reverted because the reference site, http://www.opusa.org/whatwedo/shipments.html, still says $250 million since inception. When OPUSA updates their website with more accurate data this can be altered. The 2007 revenue of $21 million is accurate however it was not cited correctly due to the following error.

5) OPUSA has been named the #1 privately funded charity by charity navigator. The references got messed up in this edit. The correct source is here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=17

6) Change of "in cooperation with [[Americares Foundation]" to "partly funded by the Americares Foundation--before it became an NGO". The idea of this is fine but the formatting is incorrect. I have corrected it in this change.

Help with content is highly appreciated but please do not add or edit any hard facts without properly citing the information and be sure the changes you make conform to Wikipedia standards in order to maintain the Good Article status of this page. A great deal of time and effort has gone into the citation of this page and I hope to maintain the integrity of the article. Wattssw (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Unilateral GA designation by article creator

Removed Good Article designation form main article, and GA ratings from Talk page in four WikiProject hatnotes, as the GA rating was unilaterally added in June 2010 by article's creator and GA requestor, Wattssw (talk), two years after last unfulfilled GA edit discussion. Jmg38 (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)