Talk:Elmwood (Cambridge, Massachusetts)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- review
- Very nicely done. The history, which appears to be a major factor in its acquiring historical status, is well presented.
- One nitpick: "Wings housing more modern services" - I can't find this in the sources. Is there a better word than "wings" which doesn't seem to have an architectural meaning on wikipedia.
- I changed "wings" to "additions". The second page, third paragraph of the nomination PDF documents the exterior changes to the house. (NB one of the additions is described as a "service ell", which I have perhaps liberally interpreted as housing "more modern services".) Magic♪piano 14:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I made some edits that you're free to change.[1]
MathewTownsend (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
- a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
- c. no original research:
- a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
- 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:
- b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass!
- Pass or Fail:
- Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)