Talk:Garbage Offensive/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 17:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) 02:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments to follow. Dracophyllum, (1 PR) 02:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• 1a)
  • Consider As a result, the city instituted systemic sanitation reforms, though some of these measures were later reversed, and the protests ended on September 2. > As a result, the city instituted systemic sanitation reforms, though some of these measures were later reversed. The protests ended on September 2.
    • Done. Spookyaki (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • No more payoffs from the people to the garbagemen what is this in reference to?
    • Added a sentence in the "Background" section: Furthermore, some sanitation workers would only collect garbage if they were bribed to do so. Spookyaki (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
  • otherwise excellent
• 1b) infobox a good addition, MOS good Y
• 2a) clean ref layout Y
• 2b) sources are all RS, you could link to the internet archive for Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. The weakest sources are probably the two non-newspaper websites, but I am happy with them because of their authors and the quality of the articles/websites. Y
• 2c) spot checking
  • ref2 good
  • ref7 good
  • ref 10 good
  • ref 18 good
  • ref 19 good
• 2d) Earwig clean
• 3a) has all required sections Y
• 3b) Detail level good Y
• 4) Encyclopaedic tone good Y
• 5) stable as anything Y
• 6a) images CC Y
• 6b) pics relevant Y. No photos of the offensive itself? If there are no CC photos, WP:FAIR USE would apply and you could use a non-free one at low resolution.
  • Some minor comments for an otherwise excellent article. @Spookyaki:. Cheers, Dracophyllum 23:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
    • @Dracophyllum: Thanks, and thanks for taking the review! I believe both issues have been addressed. Spookyaki (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

      Excellent. Apologies for the short review, but I can't find anything else to complain about. Consider getting that fair use image at some point. Cheers, passing now. Dracophyllum 00:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.