Talk:Harvard Musical Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Harvard Musical Association has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 27, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 11, 2006 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

	Massachusetts Portal Harvard Musical Association is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard. For more information on this project or to get involved see the WikiProject Massachusetts project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Boston; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

To-do list for Harvard Musical Association:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Finish adding references Find multiple citations for the Parsifal reference More sources for "Famous Members" Add information about the Community Awards to "Philanthropy" More prose on the library Double the size of the lead paragraph

[edit] GA

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarizing the topic, and the remaining text is organized into a system of hierarchical sections;

(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline;

(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;

(b) the citation of its sources using an accepted form of inline citation is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page);

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

(d) it contains no elements of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);

(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;

(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;

(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.

(c) any non-free images have a fair use rationale

Does anyone know the approximate date of the Boston Music Hall etching? I think that would be helpful. There are 3 occurrences of the word "current" in the article. These should be replaced by something like "as of 2006" or "21st century plans" - so that if this article is burned on a CD version of Wikipedia, some future reader can know immediately when the activity was occurring. (GA - approved) Appraiser 15:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)