Talk:Lego Modular Buildings/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   There is a tendency to use peacock terms: "very detailed", "creative and advanced", "interesting challenge". Also, the lead section needs to be expanded, to deal with all major aspects of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are borderline of what can be considered reliable sources, but in this case I guess it's the best that can be found. The last paragraph of "Reception", however, makes an assumption that tends towards original research. Is it not possible to find any external sources for the commercial success of the sets?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   See 1a above.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Fair use rationales look good to me.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Otherwise a good effort, hopefully these issues should be fixable. Lampman (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article! I've taken a stab at addressing the feedback. Please review my changes (I forgot to log in when I made them) and let me know what the next steps should be. More details on my changes:

• I didn't realized that such a list of peacock terms existed. This will help me in future contributions. Thanks for pointing this out. I've made the suggested changes as well as tried to apply the concept to other places I thought it made sense.
• Good point on the original research issue. I found a section of one of the interviews where the designer discussed the success so far. Hopefully that addresses this concern.
• It's good to have a second set of eyes on the fair use rationales for the images. I mulled over that for a while.

--Skotywa^Talk 06:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me understand why this review hasn't been transcluded to the talk page, I must have done something wrong... Anyway, as for the fair use rationales, I'm no expert, but it seems all right to me. In any case, my main concerns have been met, so I am now promoting this article, good work! Lampman (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there it is... Lampman (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)