Talk:Tingey House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 15:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, I will be taking on the review of this article, expect a full review to be up by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor issues; Infobox "official residence" <- Captilization in the infobox, "Official residence" Location "The House is also called the Commandant's Quarters or Commandant's House." <- does this really need to be bolded? normally, per MOS, we don't bold anything but the name in the lede. Emphasis in the article is done through italics therefore Commandant's Quarters or Commandant's House. Layout, History and Modern Era are headings and should not be displaced by images. I recommend moving the images around so as to not disturb the layout. The topic of images is also covered under 6a and 6b.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The layout of the article has been disturbed by the awkward placement of images. Otherwise, the requirements per MOS have been met.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All of the sources are presented and of the links seems to work. An exception to this are the two references to the NavalHistoryBlog whose links time out for me, I believe this is an issue with my PC and not the link. I will try to confirm this tomorrow.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	That said, for the time being, "blog" is a bit of a buzzword for me, why is there a reference to a blog? who is the author and are they a published expert in the field of U.S naval history?
	2c. it contains no original research.	Minor issue; Citation 8 doesn't mention anything about the building being named after Tingey, it does mention that it was spared from burning when the British took over Washington, I think the citation has been placed in the wrong place. Other than that, I have no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A copyvio is relatively unlikely, Earwig rates is unlikely to a confidence of about 28%, far more than it will usually concede. I will however try to confirm this by looking at the sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I find that the article may be lacking in depth, it seems to only discuss the location at a superficial level. I may or may not change my mind on this after doing some research.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article is relatively small, as such, it is difficult not to pass this section. The article is indeed neatly focused on the topic, that said, the topic may be too short.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article maintains a neutral tone throughout and balances its use of sources well.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a perfectly stable state, no current on-going edit wars and no unresolved outstanding disputes on the article's talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The images are tagged with the appropriate CC license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are too many images for such a small article. The number of images shouldn't exceed three and their presence disturbs the flow and layout of the article. I could understand the number of images if the article was significantly longer, say about 18k bytes total.
	7. Overall assessment.	Some issues have cropped up, some are easily resolved others might no be so simple.

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, I have completed my initial review of the article. I have made comments on the article in the sections I think could be improved. I would recommend ignoring my comments on 2d, 3a and 3b for the time being as they are more directed to me, this is because I am dealing with multiple GA reviews simultaneously. Thanks for your work on the article, it's an article that could be GA, just, not quite yet. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude thanks so much. I'll make these corrections within the next few days and ping you. I appreciate your time! LavaBaron|OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS MOST POPULAR DYK EDITOR IN HISTORY 21:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron, would I be correct in assuming that you've forgotten, pinging just to make sure. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude, LavaBaron posted at WT:DYK#Please withdraw following nominations that he would be leaving Wikipedia "for an extended period" on the evening of September 2; his most recent post was 07:07 on September 3. I think you have to assume that, like the 11 DYK submissions that were withdrawn, this GA nomination has likewise been abandoned. Sorry for the bad news; it looks like the thing to do is to close the nomination as unsuccessful. He can always complete addressing the issues you raised and renominate the article after he returns. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the heads up BlueMoonset, I'll have this article failed in that case. LavaBaron feel free to renominate the article for GA when you've addressed the issues above. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)