GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Montanabw ( talk · contribs) 22:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I will review this and be back with comments soon.
Montanabw
(talk)
22:54, 23 June 2015 (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. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Caption on second image would benefit from being a complete sentence, but not critical to GA status. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Also have a few stylistic hiccups to address directly:
Hope these comments give you some ideas for improvement. Montanabw (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Basically, about another paragraph or so of expansion on when the barn was built and by whom, and some expansion on the architecture description, and I think you will be good to go. I realize that there isn't a lot to work with here, and there is no minimum length for GA beyond thorough coverage of the topic, but I think there is room for a bit more "thoroughness". Montanabw (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you've touched upon everything that can be sourced. Good to go, passing. Congrats! Montanabw (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Montanabw ( talk · contribs) 22:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I will review this and be back with comments soon.
Montanabw
(talk)
22:54, 23 June 2015 (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. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
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. | ||
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). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | ||
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
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. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Caption on second image would benefit from being a complete sentence, but not critical to GA status. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Also have a few stylistic hiccups to address directly:
Hope these comments give you some ideas for improvement. Montanabw (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Basically, about another paragraph or so of expansion on when the barn was built and by whom, and some expansion on the architecture description, and I think you will be good to go. I realize that there isn't a lot to work with here, and there is no minimum length for GA beyond thorough coverage of the topic, but I think there is room for a bit more "thoroughness". Montanabw (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you've touched upon everything that can be sourced. Good to go, passing. Congrats! Montanabw (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)