Talk:Sigma Chi/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead needs to expanded to summarise the article per WP:LEAD. It should consist of two paragraphs for an article this size

"Isaac M. Jordan (May 5, 1835 – December 3, 1890) was born in Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania[18] as Isaac Alfred Jordan" - no need to have this in bold (MOS:BOLD)

First paragraph of the Purdue case section is unsourced

Most of the Nomenclature and insignia section is unsourced. Can the content from the subsections be merged into one if they're not important?

Lots of unsourced claims in the Organization of the fraternity section, and a few citation needed tags which need to be dealt with

Two citation needed tags in the Publications section which need to be sourced

" Since 1855, Sigma Chi has initiated more than 300,000 men" - this is unsourced

Is the Alumni chapters important? If it can't be expanded, can you merge it elsewhere or get rid of it?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

There are several unsourced paragraphs and claims which will need to be dealt with before this meets the criteria. I see that this article is indeed well written and comprehensive, so I'm willing to give this a chance. There are some citation needed tags which will need to be removed and sourced, so once all of my concerns are addressed I'll take another look at this. Please let me know if you have any questions JAGUAR 19:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I will try to address these issues within the week but with limited time I do hope other users will lend a hand, especially for some of the sourcing. Acidskater (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No problem, take as much time as you need. JAGUAR 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Jaguar, Acidskater, it's been almost six weeks; where does this review stand? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, I completely forgot about this! It looks like I'm still waiting for Acidskater's response. If I don't hear anything back in a few days I'll close the review. JAGUAR 23:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I barely have time to do anything on Wikipedia and did a bit not too long ago but really haven't had time for much of anything. I'm gonna try to keep doing what I can but I know I'm not going to have the time for at least the next few weeks. I totally understand if you have to close the review but hopefully another user will be able to step-up to help. Thanks Acidskater (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Jaguar again; it's probably time to close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acidskater, I'll have to close this review now. Please let me know if you'll renominate and I'll be happy to take this again in the future.

JAGUAR 11:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]