Talk:Acting white/GA1
GA Review[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
A great article, with a good chance to develop into a featured article with review and effort.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- Very well-written, high standards of grammar and spelling and so on. Manual of Style-compliant for GA standards but had a great number of low-value links that dilute the quality and relevance of the informational web (see advice); I have addressed most of these.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Exemplary source selection, reference information, and density of citations throughout, well done.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- The focus is fine. One thing about this article I am wondering about, however, is why there is no significant opposing view mentioned - defences of the "Acting white" critique from a black pride point of view or criticism of the idea that copying "good" white behaviour is a positive thing (from an anti-imperialist perspective)? What do the Jesse Jacksons, the Ashanti Alstons of the world have to say on this issue?
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- See previous point.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- You might consider adding an image of Bill Cosby
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Thank you very much for you review. I added a picture of Cosby. As far as balance goes, I'm not aware of either Jesse Jackson or Ashanti Alston himself saying anything. I looked and I did find two notable commentaries on the issue defending African American uniqueness in the context of the 'acting white' issue. I added that. The Squicks (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- In terms of 'imperialism' and so on, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I'm more than happy to discuss further possible additions, but could you be a bit more specific about what you'd like to see? The Squicks (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jackson/Alston/anti-imperialists were just examples of possible sources of dissenting views; the two you added are sufficient for GA purposes ("addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "represents viewpoints fairly and without bias"), though if this article were to go to WP:FAC (which I definitely encourage you to do, after a peer review), I would like to see more depth to the debate, and more back-and-forth on the points raised. That said, this is a very fine article and I have no reservations about granting it Good Article status. Congratulations on all your diligent effort. Regards, Skomorokh 11:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- In terms of 'imperialism' and so on, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I'm more than happy to discuss further possible additions, but could you be a bit more specific about what you'd like to see? The Squicks (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)