Talk:Constitution Square Historic Site
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitution Square Historic Site article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Constitution Square Historic Site has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Constitution Square State Historic Site/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Initial comments
[edit]I've had a quick read of the article, and it looks to be at or about GA-level, but I've not yet checked any references. I'm now working my way through the article in more depth, starting at History working to the end and then going back to the WP:Lead. I hope to have this completed today. Pyrotec (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- History -
- Looks OK.
- Buildings -
- Looks OK.
- Events -
- Looks OK.
- WP:Lead -
- This provides a reasonable introduction to the topic and a reasonable summary of the main points. It would not hurt to add a bit more detail to the summary, but I'm not going to put the review On Hold whilst this is done. Pyrotec (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Overall summary
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Well referenced.
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Well referenced.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Well illustrated.
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Well illustrated. Many of them taken by the nominator.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
I'm happy to be able to award GA-status to this article. Congratulations on a fine well illustrated and referenced article.
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- GA-Class Kentucky articles
- Low-importance Kentucky articles
- WikiProject Kentucky articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
- Mid-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
- GA-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Mid-importance
- GA-Class African diaspora articles
- Low-importance African diaspora articles
- WikiProject African diaspora articles
- GA-Class United States History articles
- Low-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles