GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an interesting historical structure from a under-represented area. Unfortunately, I don't think the article in its current state is ready for the Good Article process. I'm sorry that it sat in the queue for awhile only to have this disappointing outcome. Specific comments are below; I hope that this article can be improved and make its way back to GAC in due time.
This desperately wants for a solid copy-editing (although the breadth of coverage issues should be resolved first). There are quite a few really awkward sentences, and some where I'm simply not sure exactly what was intended:
I don't think there's anything that would prevent a GA-quality article here. But I do think that checking for more sources, squaring up the issues of balance, and running the whole thing through an image licensing check and a solid copy editing will take more time that the GA Review process is intended to accommodate. Good luck with the article improvements, and don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can be of some assistance. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 19:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an interesting historical structure from a under-represented area. Unfortunately, I don't think the article in its current state is ready for the Good Article process. I'm sorry that it sat in the queue for awhile only to have this disappointing outcome. Specific comments are below; I hope that this article can be improved and make its way back to GAC in due time.
This desperately wants for a solid copy-editing (although the breadth of coverage issues should be resolved first). There are quite a few really awkward sentences, and some where I'm simply not sure exactly what was intended:
I don't think there's anything that would prevent a GA-quality article here. But I do think that checking for more sources, squaring up the issues of balance, and running the whole thing through an image licensing check and a solid copy editing will take more time that the GA Review process is intended to accommodate. Good luck with the article improvements, and don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can be of some assistance. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 19:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)