Talk:Shag Harbour incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Good Article comments
Greetings and salutations! I have looked over the article, and I am afraid to say that I do not think it is GA standard yet. Here is a criterion-by-criterion commentary (numbered as per WP:WIAGA):
- The prose is fine, and I can't find any problems with the grammar and vocabulary. However, the lede is not nearly long enough - a single simple sentence to describe the whole incident? I would expect at least a paragraphy of summary. And, please do link all the dates, to make sure that they will display in people's preferred format!
- Referencing is my major sticking point here. There is a single source for the -whole- article. No page numbers, no anything. In the article, a History Channel documentary is mentioned, and according to the article, there was a good amount of press coverage at the time. I don't mind relying on a small number of authoritative sources, but please do cite page numbers to make it easier to verify. Especially in parts like the first paragraph of "Alleged military search", where there is a lot of quoting and paraphrasing witnesses, it would be very nice to have a footnote per witness quotation, even if it is only 'Ibid, pp 98'. Also see about the 'allegations' in the subsequent point.
- Seems somewhat broad, covering the incident, responses, and reporting. Did the incident have a big lasting impact? Perhaps that could be mentioned more explicitly. Also, there is a lot of 'alleging'. This makes it sound like the government tried to cover it up. If they didn't, stand by your sources and remove all the 'allegations' flying about. More elaboration on the government's official stance would be nice. See comment above about the lede, too.
- Article doesn't strike me as being anything but NPOV once there is sourcing for the 'allegations'.
- Article is also stable. No complaints here.
- The current selection of images is fine.
Good luck! Abednigo 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Side note: the newspaper article image needs a fair use rationale, or the article will be quick-failed if re-nominated. --Nehrams2020 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations & References
See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Categories: Wikipedia controversial topics | B-Class paranormal articles | WikiProject Paranormal articles | B-Class Rational Skepticism articles | Unknown-importance Rational Skepticism articles | Former good article nominees | WikiProject Nova Scotia articles | B-Class Nova Scotia articles | Mid-importance Nova Scotia articles | B-Class Canada-related articles | Mid-importance Canada-related articles