I'm not too familiar with Judaism as a religion, but its within North America and I expect I have the level of background where I could do a GA level review. I'll work on this over the next week.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Haggadah of choice for President Barack Obama's this might go under neutrality, but its often just better to keep it simple and say something like Barak Obama used... if it was the only one he used.
as were one million copies of the revised, gender-neutral translation in 2011 I don't think its necessary to explain that the 2011 revision was gender neutral here. You already say it elsewhere in the article, and there isn't a reason to expect that it would have caused a decline in use. It also might be worth cutting the 2006 number for the sake of concision.
fond tradition I could go either way on fond (concision and neutrality issues). I'll raise it here for you to consider.
a former high school teacher of English just say High school English teacher that's the most common way of phrasing it in American English, which would be the correct style for this article.
The inside layout underwent additional graphics changes every decade on average is awkwardly constructed IMO, not sure if there is a better way to get the ideas across.
Then as now, the Haggadah presents only a bit of an overly formal tone here in my opinion. Its simpler to just remove then as now and more concise.
It was reportedly used in underground Seders reportedly is a word to watch here, and the source states it as a fact. Is there a reason we shouldn't believe it?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
This is actually the biggest potential red flag I see because it switches between using the templates and using shortend footnotes/Harvard style referencing. In my own articles I like to keep it consistent, and I haven't seen other GAs that combine the two. I'll ping @
EEng and
Ritchie333: on this for their opinions.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 16:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
This is a common approach where many cites to a small number of key sources coexist with a bunch of singleton cites to scattered sources. EEng 17:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I hadn't seen it before. So wanted a second opinion on consistency. Passing on this point.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 17:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Man, you write in sentence fragments and call yourself a GA reviewer? What's this world coming to? EEng 17:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm looking for a witty response and coming up short. Hang head in shame.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 17:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Yoninah, good work on this. One of the better GA nominations I have read through, and I really enjoyed reading it. The fixes are pretty simple to make, and the question about the citation style is for now just a questions that I wanted to get other editor's feedback on before passing this. Like I said, very good job.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 16:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
TonyBallioni thank you very much for your review and complimentary remarks. I made all the fixes you mentioned under well written. The Hallmark card is quoted as calling it a
cultural icon, but I used a link instead of quote marks the first time I mention that term. Regarding the referencing, I generally put only the book sources into shortened footnotes, but I could do the same with the newspaper sources if you prefer. Please let me know.
Yoninah (
talk) 21:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
No, its fine now. Its just a stylistic preference on my part. All the changes look good. This is a pass.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 22:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply