Jump to content

Talk:Groom Mine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Groom Mine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it this weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotcheck

[edit]

Using a random number generator, I have spotchecked the following

  • 27: Good (with #21)
  • 12a: Page numbers should be 7-1 or 7-2 or corresponding similar number. Good
  • 29a: cannot find anything about it being the first test not good
  • 20:good. Why not give the depth of both (seeing as there are only two)
  • 16: Good

Prose

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Baffle gab1978 and Sturmvogel 66: is there any other additional work I need to do before going to WP:FAC?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to see if there's been any compensation paid to the Sheahans since 2017, but otherwise looks OK. Though you may get hit on quality of sourcing again, FYI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66:, unfortunately, no news on that front; the most recent thing about the subject of this article was a small blurb in Reader's Digest.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough; I'd add something that says "as of this date, nothing further is known about the exact compensation paid" though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66:, done.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]