Talk:Virginia/GA1

Good Article Assessment[edit]

Here is the revision of the page I assessed, but I have since made subsequent edits. Below is my assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
(no edit wars etc.)
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Further anaylsis on findings:

All images were correctly tagged, captioned and appropriate to the article in question. They also helped to enhance the reading of the article Y
Grammar, prose and spelling is excellent.Y
Everything is readable, and doesn't incorporate words that a beginning editor or reader wouldn't understand.Y
It is very good for the single-handed work of Patrickneil, and avoids POV-style content, something important for an GA nominee.Y
The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail. Y

However, there are some concerns with the Virginia article that I feel are in the interests of the reader, but also the article.

There isn't a proportionate amount of sources backing up the many claims that are situated throughout the page. Some sections like have two or less references which are cited, they are listed below:
the lead - no references
the independence section - no references
the Civil War section - no references
the Twentieth century section - two references
the Cities and towns section - one reference
the Religion section - two references
the fine and performing arts section - no references
the transport section - two references
the sports section - no references

I understand that you should only reference the lead when there are claims that are challenging as per citations in the lead guidelines, and most are mentioned again later down the page and are referenced, which is good. But it may help to reference the the lead, as most readers strangely only read the lead of most articles. But for the rest this is unacceptable. For what is wrote, (which is very good by the way) isn't referenced at all, and so no claims can be effectively referenced. Not something that can occur with a GA status article. It is because of this, with regret, that I am going to have to put this article on hold for 7 days which is in line with GAN guidelines. This should be more than enough time to proportiontely reference the article. I would like to see, when I come back, at least 5 for each paragraph. I have every faith you can do this, and I wish to pass this when I return. Regards, — Rudget _speak.work 19:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick - I've cleared out a few other things I've been working on, so I can give this some time. I have a couple of Virginia history books, so I can help reference the history sections. You've been driving this very admirably, so let me know if there are any other specific tasks I can help with.--Kubigula (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent idea. For the purposes of the GA review, that's a really good idea. Make sure to use the right cite book template though. Best, — Rudget _speak.work 19:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I do agree it could use more references. I also remember the days when 70 references were more than adequate for a GA. I'm not sure 5 per paragraph is either necessary or an appropriate measure of verifiability. That would require over 325 references. The culture sections tend to be listing things like museums and musicians, and I don't know what need be cited. If you could perhaps be more specific. I will add more fact tags today, and if there is anything I miss, please feel free to post it.

Kubigula, thanks! I see you're already adding to the sections. But references for the history section, while necessary, are the easiest to add. I'd say Religion, Transportation, and Sports are the difficult ones.--Patrick Ѻ 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably true. I can finish out the history section in the next day or two, then help out with the others. My natural inclination would be to do sports next, but I'm willing to accept assignment. I will also drop on note on the WikiProject VA page.--Kubigula (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get the history and the sports, I'll try to get the others. I've loaded the page with a fine level of fact tags, and it definitely looks like we could use some help from the WikiProject.--Patrick Ѻ 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is quite a large amount of {{fact}} tags, it may be an idea to put this in a sandbox. — Rudget _speak.work 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick - you weren't kidding about sports being difficult to reference. I've spent literally hours trying to find reliable sources for what was tagged in the sports section. I had just given up and decided that we would simply have to re-write, when I saw you beat me to it!--Kubigula (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I looked into it. The sentences that said "so-and-so is popular in Virginia" are just not citable. I got around it for the Orioles and Nationals, saying that they are broadcast in the state. Excellent job with the history references, and rewriting where necessary.--Patrick Ѻ 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass of Fail?[edit]

I've brought this article to the attention of other GAN reviewers, since I am unsure of possibly violating and risking a reassessment on this article by passing it, and the same for not. I hope the article does pass, and I appreciate all the co-operation I received. — Rudget^Talk 17:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we very much appreciate your review and all the input. However, note that it hasn't quite been a week yet - we are still polishing.--Kubigula (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. Sorry I somehow managed to add 6 & 7 together to make 11. — Rudget _{Contributions} 13:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass[edit]

I'm now passing this article due to the lack of referencing problem being swiftly sorted out. Well done to all those involved. All the best, — Rudget _{Contributions} 13:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and good work, guys! I'm buried deep in law school, but I've kept an eye on things. Again, congrats!~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]