Talk:Last Exit on Brooklyn/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: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 01:22, 13 January 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose quality is solid. There are no disambiguation links. The biggest problems with this article are with the lead and the layout. These problems are intertwined. What I see appears on the surface to be an overly large lead, with only one small section. Upon further review, it looks like the article actually has no lead, and that all of this should be the body of the article. I suggest making the second sentence the first sentence of the body of the article, and then creating a lead with the first sentence that fully summarizes the body of the article. Also, I'm not clear on why Last Exit to Brooklyn is in the "See also" section. It seems to me it would be more appropriate as a disambiguation link at the top of the article. "See also" is for related articles, while disambiguation links are for articles with similar names that could be confused for the subject of the article in question. If the name of the book and the name of the coffee shop are similar intentionally (one was named after the other), then this article should mention that (see section 3). There are no words to watch, fiction, or list issues to mention.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Many references are presented. Most of them seem to be of high quality. However, one of them is a dead link ("Coffee Land: Make your way through Seattle's magical caffeine history!"). Seeing as that's an external link and not an inline citation, I'll delete it without finding a replacement to satisfy these criteria (as the editor noted, the online version isn't necessary). The Facebook page and Seattle Wiki are included as external links, and not references, so I can accept that.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Regarding my earlier comment on Last Exit to Brooklyn, if the coffee shop was named after the book, or the book was named after the coffee shop, that seems to be a relevant piece of information that should be included. That might be a major aspect that isn't included. The article is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias as far as I can tell.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No evidence of edit warring or content disputes.

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):

   Both images are free, but I was confused by the caption on the first image. After reading it again, I see that "Seattle, Washington's oldest coffeehouse at the time (now defunct)" is trying to refer to the fact that it was the oldest coffeehouse in Seattle at the time. However, that's not backed up by any sources (unless "Seattle's Last Exit", an offline source, says the one older coffeehouse is elsewhere). I suggest changing the caption to simply read "The exterior of the Last Exit on Brooklyn", and mind that there shouldn't be a period for a caption that isn't a full sentence.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am putting this article on hold for one week to allow for improvements.
   In the eight days since I put this on hold (allowing an extra day for the English Wikipedia blackout), there has been no response here or to the talk page message I left for the nominator. The only edit made to this page was to readd the source I deleted, only removing the dead link, which is fine, but that falls short of addressing my review. This article could be a GA, but it needs some work. I suggest starting with my above comments, and maybe seeking a peer review. Once improvements have been made, feel free to renominate this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2012 (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.