Talk:Dugway sheep incident/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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:
    Well done.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Dates need to be unlinked, per here.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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:
    It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} template. According to this, there are three dead links.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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):
    Does Reference 5 cover all this ---> "The incident log at Dugway Proving Ground indicated that the sheep incident began with a phone call on March 17, 1968 at 12:30 a.m. The director of the University of Utah's ecological and epidemiological contract with Dugway, a Dr. Bode, phoned Keith Smart, the chief of the ecology and epidemiology branch at Dugway to report that 3,000 sheep were dead in the Skull Valley area. The initial report of the incident came to Bode from the manager of a Skull Valley livestock company"?
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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:
    In the Possible causes section, this ---> "The most obvious explanation in the aftermath", sounds like POV and may need to be re-written.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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 statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Thanks for the prompt review. It looks like the issues you've raised should be pretty easy to address. When I have a bit more time they shouldn't take more than a half hour or so. Thanks again. :-)--IvoShandor (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ref #5 does cover that blurb. Should I add some more footnotes?--IvoShandor (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I altered the POV statement to read "One explanation . . ." --IvoShandor (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that you see? --IvoShandor (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dates! Ahhhh!! Sorry, stupid MOS. :-) Also on the templates, honestly I hate using those templates, I can type a citation much faster than I can insert the relevant info into the templates. What to do about those dead links though? Internet Archive?--IvoShandor (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to here, its not necessarily required to properly "format" references, as long as they are "consistent" throughout the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the dates should be delinked now. I found replacement links for two of those dead links, the Indian Country article I couldn't find a new link for, but it does have the Lexis Nexis link, which requires access, usually through a local library, so that should do.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke too soon, a bit of searching turned up a freely accessible link to the article. I will leave the Lexis Nexis link as well, in case another link death occurs. :-)--IvoShandor (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also made a few other minor improvements, some minor copy editing, added a category, added some more external links, including a Time Magazine article from 1968 and a link to a 1998 NPR report on the incident.--IvoShandor (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, after reading the article once more, I have gone off and passed the article. Though, it would be a good idea if a little more explanation was given in the Background section, particularly part of this sentence ---> "is a closely guarded secret". Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to IvoShandor who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Dugway_sheep_incident/GA1"