Talk:Parsons Sun

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Parsons Sun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GavinTG (talk · contribs) 23:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chetsford (talk · contribs) 23:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's my initial pass ...

Critical failures check

Cleanup check  Done. Article is absent any cleanup templates.
Copyvio check  Done. Earwig indicates "violation unlikely" (10.7%) on WP:COPYVIO check.

Criterion 1 (well-written)

• As per MOS:LEADCITE, citations are usually not necessary in the lead section as all lead content should be repeated in the body where it is sourced. This has a dozen citations in the lead. In addition, some content (like 2025 publication schedule) is not seen in the body.
• Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, "Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." This lead is 89 words.
• Per MOS:NUMERAL some numbers should be spelled (e.g. change "4" to "four", etc.).
• The caption "Photo of Leslie J. Perry, co-founder of the Parsons Sun." is a sentence fragment and, while a sentence fragment can have a period in a caption, it would be better if it didn't. We also don't need "Date unknown" in the caption.
• I assume "Ammunition plant" is not a proper name, therefore, "Ammunition" should not be capitalized.
• One instance of Parsons Sun in the section "Competition" is not italicized.

Criterion 2 (verifiable with no WP:OR)

Looks good; only two changes necessary (see below). I've spot-checked 10 percent of the sources (six total) and verified they correctly support the content cited. I've attempted an additional check of extraordinary claims, but found none. I've reviewed the list of sources and confirm they're all WP:RS. Each sentence is cited.

• This sentence ("While a variety of newspapers have been founded in Parsons, only two newspapers were able to succesfully compeat with the Parsons Sun.") requires either a citation or removal.
• The current circulation indicated in the infobox requires a source. The newspaper itself is probably okay as an WP:ABOUTSELF source if access to an audit bureau is not available.

Criterion 3 (broad in coverage)

This is probably fine. Typically, even small locals like this have won some regional newspaper awards. If any sources can be found related to awards, an Awards section would be appropriate and is typical for newspapers. However, if that's not doable it's fine as-is.

Criterion 4 (neutral)

Article meets our WP:NPOV standards.

Criterion 5 (stable)

Article is generally stable. Over the last few months, the only real edits that have occurred to it are from the GA nom preparing it for this GA.

Criterion 6 (illustrated)

Well-filled infobox and several appropriate images. Looks good.

Chetsford (talk) 23:32, 22 March 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.