# Talk:The War Within (Woodward book)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The War Within: A Secret White House History (2006–2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking the quick fail criteria, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 
It is reasonably well written; however in the Synopsis section there is press comment on the book, e.g. Fox News has described the overall tone of the book towards Bush as "mixed". However, International Herald Tribune reviewer Michiko Kakutani states that it "reaches a damning conclusion about the presidency". Thisd needs to be put in the Reception section.  Done
b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): 
well referenced
b (citations to reliable sources): 
citations to RS
c (OR): 

It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects): 

b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
JUst one minor concern mentioned above, on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the amendment. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Thank you very much for reviewing the article. I agree completely with what you recommended, and I made the change. The Squicks (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on The War Within (Woodward book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090611151843/http://www.tnr.com:80/politics/story.html?id=7894e8ce-9773-4792-b66d-b6acfdbc6521 to http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7894e8ce-9773-4792-b66d-b6acfdbc6521
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)