Talk:My Old Kentucky Home State Park/GA1

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    The prose is good. The only issue is the lead section, which is too short and doesn't provide a good summary of the article. If the lead can be improved to at least two paragraphs, summarizing things better, then I think the article would meet GA standards. See WP:LEAD.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Citations used are reliable and information is verifiable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    The article seems to cover the major topics of the history and architecture of the house well.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    The article is written in a neutral tone. No WP:NPOV violations.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    No stability issues, WP:3RR violations, or edit-warring are evident.
  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):  
    All images are free and tagged appropriately. Captions are short, succinct and descriptive.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    The only real issue here is that the lead section is too short. Once that is fixed the article should meet Good Article standards. I'll place this on hold until 2/26/2010 so that this can be addressed. WTF? (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The lead looks good now. The article meets the GA criteria. WTF? (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply