Talk:Mystic Seaport Light/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 22:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting the review and should have the review later today or tomorrow.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @ChrisGualtieri:,

You've done a lot of great work to take this article from a stub to an interesting story about the lighthouse - and the unique situation of being created, but never fully utilized!

There is some repetition in the article, and I think the information could be grouped a little differently to help minimize the repetition. Perhaps, it could be written more strictly chronologically or by stages of development/utilization and then sectioned that way (e.g., perhaps, Design and construction, Operational requirements --> "Sentinels of the Sea" exhibit).

The way my brain works, I keep going around in circles trying to figure out the chain of events and why something is duplicated -- and have been having a hard time putting the review notes together. Once I get past this, from the looks of it it will be a quick review.

I am happy to take a stab at it, if you like (I love editing actually more than writing - it's cool either way). What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you've not been online in several weeks, so I'll go ahead and start... but please chime in if you're online here at WP.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

The article is a great expansion of a stub article about the light. There are clear attempts to properly paraphrase the content of the article (i.e., in some cases there were limited ways to word the content, e.g., lens on loan from Coast Guard) and direct copy of material was placed in quotations. It follows the Manual of Style regarding lead, layout, words to watch, etc. There are inline citations to reliable sources. There is no evidence of original research. It is not a long article, but covers the topic well based upon research for additional information. It does not go into unnecessary detail. It is neutral and stable.

There is one relevant image, which is in the public domain is properly tagged. It is in Wikipedia and is tagged to move to commons, but that is not a GA criteria item.

I don't see any additional changes that are required to make it a good article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]