Talk:Lachine massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Lachine massacre has been listed as one of the History 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, 2007.
March 31, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	Quebec Portal This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (nations and regions): Canadian military history task force

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Not Yet

   1. The Introduction needs to be expanded significantly so that it adequately summarizes the entire article in a few paragraphs.
   2. An infobox would be helpful at the top of the article as well to help summarize some of the major details.
   3. Many editors frown on one-sentence paragraphs. I would suggest merging the sentencens that stand alone into existing paragraphs or into paragraphs of their own (such as in the "historical accounts" section.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass the article is sufficently sourced.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass no problems there.

   1. One nitpick though, the source for the book quote should be placed directly after the quote itself, instead of after the name of the book that it comes from.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass no problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Not Yet Solving the above issues will make the article stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass no problems there.

7. Overall:

   On Hold just a few things need to be done to get the article a promotion. -Ed! (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to GA review

1. It is reasonably well written:
   1. The Introduction has been expanded to summarize the article's overall contents.
   2. An infobox has been added.
   3. One-sentence paragraphs have been consolidated.
2. It is broad in its coverage:
   1. Source for book quotation has been moved to end of the quotation.

AlphaEta 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that looks good. Well done! -Ed! (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)