Talk:Cooper Review/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 12:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Awardgive
I'm afraid this article does not pass our Good Article criteria at this time. The biggest problem with this article is a lack of completeness. I understand it's a minor paper with a small circulation, but it's been around over a hundred years; surely there must be more information available. I know you won't find as much material as you would for GAs like Portland Monthly or The New York Times, but there are lots of GAs of relatively minor newspapers and magazines: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Illustrated Daily News, The Register-Guard, Seara (newspaper), The Technique, The American Israelite, etc. These articles have information on important or noted articles, periods of the paper's history, effects within the community, editorial slant, analysis of content, etc. Heck, even The Covent-Garden Journal, a tiny magazine published only in 1752, was made a Featured Articel! (Reading that article may be instructive.) So I know there's more that can be written about The Cooper Review, if you look beyond the online sources.
There are a few other problems as well. According to MOS:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a concise summary of all sections of the article. For this reason, lead sections don't normally require citations (except for controversial statements or direct quotes); instead, the statement should be cited in the article body wherever the fact is mentioned there. Although this lead is mostly correct, the claim that the Cooper Review serves most of Delta County is not given in the body. The claim should be included in the body as well and cited there; then it should not be cited in the lead.
In addition, each section is a single, long paragraph, and the prose should probably be split into paragrahps for organization and easier reading. There's an unresolved {{when}} tag. The image is unnecessarily blurry.
If you resolve all of these issues, feel free to renominate the article at WP:GAN. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)