Talk:Elcor, Minnesota/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 22:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Commencing GAR for Elcor, Minnesota. I'll begin later today. Codyorb (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Exceptionally composed. Quite interesting and informative.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Excellent use of reliable sources. I would suggest narrowing them down from 3-5 per sentence to 1-3, although it's not necessary.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Comprehensively written, incorporating facts well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias detectable.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No recent edit disputes found.

6. 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):

   NOTE: See comment by Finnusertop below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, a very well written article. I would suggest even putting it up for FAR; it meets the criteria well.

• Comment: The Guild of Copy Editors has completed a copy-edit on this article. The prose should be in good shape. Feel free to ping me with any questions about the prose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: @DrGregMN and Codyorb: I don't think criterion 6 should have been passed. File:Don H. Bacon.jpg has an obviously bogus fair use rationale. This is not "his/her biographical article" and the image is not used at the top. This default rationale supplied by the image upload wizard should be replaced by one that reflect actual use of the image for it to pass WP:NFCC#10c. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Finnusertop:. Didn't catch that first. Changing the status to On Hold. Sorry for the interuption everyone. Codyorb (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, @Codyorb and Finnusertop: I have changed the rationale for the image File:Don H. Bacon.jpg to more accurately reflect it's actual use. Hopefully this will suffice. DrGregMN (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.