Talk:Chicago Options Associates/GA1

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

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Beagel (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC) I'm going to review this GA nom. I hope to provide my feedback in coming days. Beagel (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you very much, feel free to take your time. — Cirt (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: This article has had a helpful copy edit from the
    Guild of Copy Editors. My thanks to Miniapolis for helping out with this. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
here
for what they are not)

On hold. The issue of the article's coverage needs clarification. Otherwise, good work.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (
    lists
    )    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (
    focused
    )    :
    About half of the article is about the Illinois Supreme Court case while any other information about the company and its activities is rather limited. I could be more balanced if the article is expanded by other company-related information. It could be, of course, the the company is mainly notable for this court case (in addition to hiring Jimbo) but in this case the focus and title of the article should be used. It is also unclear what is the current status of this company. At the same time, the paragraph about Bomis and the Wikimedia Foundation probably does not belong here as this is not about the company and should be covered in other relevant articles which exist.
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .     After considering your answer, I think there is no problem.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have
    suitable captions
    )    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Beagel (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Beagel, for the review. Basically my response is that this article utilizes the full corpus of references out there that cover this company and topic. I'd rather not remove any sourced information. However, it is indeed true that more additional information can be found in other articles. But I think this article should be a one-stop-shop for readers that wish to find all information out there about this company as reflected in references. In the course of my research, I haven't come across any other references. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After considering your answer, I think that the article passes GA criteria. Good work. Beagel (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_Options_Associates/GA1&oldid=612029001"