Talk:Minnehaha Park (Minneapolis)/GA1

GA Review

Article promoted - 11 June 2015.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch Reviewer: Coretheapple (talk · contribs) 14:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC) GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (reference section): } b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Overall: Pass/Fail: This is a well-written and very comprehensive article, and despite my strenuous efforts to find anything substantially wrong with it, I really couldn't. My only nitpicky point is that you convert the bare URLs into properly formulated references. That's really it. Nice job. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Opps - those were present when I began to work on the article and I failed to notice them. I'll take care of them ASAP. Thanks for the review. Gandydancer (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)