Dowse Sod House has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 17, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be using WP:IAR on one aspect of the rules here: Technically, there might be a little original research here, but it's of the "describe how sources were evaluated in footnotes" sort, which I think is fully justified in a case where there's a lot of ambiguity in the sources. If there's any sources that back your arguments, mentioning them would strengthen this aspect, and really help you out if you intend to go for featured article.
So, I'm giving this a pass on well-referenced. In fact, it uses extra references and checks to make sure that it's as accurate as possible. Other than those couple footnotes, everything is fine on that point.
So.
It's comprehensive, seems to us all relevant sources, and provides loads of extremely interesting background.
I think this is an excellent article, and think it deserves to be GA.
The only real issue that could be improved is that the historical significance of the house isn't fully described. I mean, a homestead sod house is almost certainly significant, but it'd be good to summarise the arguments that got it onto the National Register of Historic Places, because, you know, why not?
✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dowse Sod House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Dowse Sod House has been listed as one of the
Art and architecture good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 17, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden ( talk · contribs) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to be using WP:IAR on one aspect of the rules here: Technically, there might be a little original research here, but it's of the "describe how sources were evaluated in footnotes" sort, which I think is fully justified in a case where there's a lot of ambiguity in the sources. If there's any sources that back your arguments, mentioning them would strengthen this aspect, and really help you out if you intend to go for featured article.
So, I'm giving this a pass on well-referenced. In fact, it uses extra references and checks to make sure that it's as accurate as possible. Other than those couple footnotes, everything is fine on that point.
So.
It's comprehensive, seems to us all relevant sources, and provides loads of extremely interesting background.
I think this is an excellent article, and think it deserves to be GA.
The only real issue that could be improved is that the historical significance of the house isn't fully described. I mean, a homestead sod house is almost certainly significant, but it'd be good to summarise the arguments that got it onto the National Register of Historic Places, because, you know, why not?
✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dowse Sod House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)