![]() | Rideau Cottage 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: March 15, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Rideau Cottage appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Saskoiler ( talk · contribs) 05:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article for good article (GA) standards. More to come as I work through the criteria.
Saskoiler (
talk)
05:53, 11 March 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. | Overall, the prose is clear and concise.
I have several questions. See below: "Prose/Clarity". |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section... well-written and picks out highlights.
Layout... good. Words to watch... one instance of "currently". See below: "Manual of Style" Fiction... n/a. Embedded lists... n/a. (In the future, one might build the "residents of Rideau Cottage" using an embedded list, like the "Children" example at MOS:EMBED.) |
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. | "References" section exists, containing ten sources. |
![]() |
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). | Of the ten citations, I checked the eight which are linked directly to content. They are all reliable sources: books, official government documents, mainstream media. I cross-referenced each of the facts against the citations, and all are accurately supported.
I have two minor questions. See below: "Citations" |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | There appears to be no original research. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There appears to be no problems with copyright or plagiarism. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The primary aspects of this topic (construction; historical residents; architectural detail) are addressed.
I have a few questions about linked information which would be helpful for readers to understand the context of articles related to this one. See below: "Categories, Templates, See Also" |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article has laser focus. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article presents the topic in a neutral point of view. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I don't see any evidence of stability problems. |
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. | There is one very good image, and it is in the public domain (Canadian copyright expired). |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Image is relevant to the topic and has a suitable caption is used (though I would be inclined to eliminate the word "pictured"). |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | After reviewing the updates made in response to the issues below, I am satisfied that the GA criteria are met. Pass |
Overall Review Comments
This is a short article, but I liked it. It is crisply written. The citations provide excellent coverage of the topic. I learned something from this article. Thank you for working on and nominating it.
There are only a handful of fairly minor items to resolve, listed in four sections (A, B, C, D) following this statement. Please add comments below to let me know they are addressed (or help me understand why it is the way it is). Once this is done, I will pass this GA review. I'm placing the review on hold for these fixes to be made. Thanks. Saskoiler ( talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A: Prose/Clarity
B: Manual of Style
C: Categories, Templates, See Also
D: Citations
Future Suggestions (It is NOT necessary to address these for GA review. They are just some ideas for future improvements I had while reading.)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rideau Cottage. 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) 15:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Rideau Cottage 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: March 15, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Rideau Cottage appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Saskoiler ( talk · contribs) 05:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article for good article (GA) standards. More to come as I work through the criteria.
Saskoiler (
talk)
05:53, 11 March 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. | Overall, the prose is clear and concise.
I have several questions. See below: "Prose/Clarity". |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section... well-written and picks out highlights.
Layout... good. Words to watch... one instance of "currently". See below: "Manual of Style" Fiction... n/a. Embedded lists... n/a. (In the future, one might build the "residents of Rideau Cottage" using an embedded list, like the "Children" example at MOS:EMBED.) |
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. | "References" section exists, containing ten sources. |
![]() |
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). | Of the ten citations, I checked the eight which are linked directly to content. They are all reliable sources: books, official government documents, mainstream media. I cross-referenced each of the facts against the citations, and all are accurately supported.
I have two minor questions. See below: "Citations" |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | There appears to be no original research. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | There appears to be no problems with copyright or plagiarism. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The primary aspects of this topic (construction; historical residents; architectural detail) are addressed.
I have a few questions about linked information which would be helpful for readers to understand the context of articles related to this one. See below: "Categories, Templates, See Also" |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | The article has laser focus. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article presents the topic in a neutral point of view. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | I don't see any evidence of stability problems. |
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. | There is one very good image, and it is in the public domain (Canadian copyright expired). |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Image is relevant to the topic and has a suitable caption is used (though I would be inclined to eliminate the word "pictured"). |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | After reviewing the updates made in response to the issues below, I am satisfied that the GA criteria are met. Pass |
Overall Review Comments
This is a short article, but I liked it. It is crisply written. The citations provide excellent coverage of the topic. I learned something from this article. Thank you for working on and nominating it.
There are only a handful of fairly minor items to resolve, listed in four sections (A, B, C, D) following this statement. Please add comments below to let me know they are addressed (or help me understand why it is the way it is). Once this is done, I will pass this GA review. I'm placing the review on hold for these fixes to be made. Thanks. Saskoiler ( talk) 22:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
A: Prose/Clarity
B: Manual of Style
C: Categories, Templates, See Also
D: Citations
Future Suggestions (It is NOT necessary to address these for GA review. They are just some ideas for future improvements I had while reading.)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rideau Cottage. 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) 15:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)