Talk:City of Washington–Washington & Jefferson College relations/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I will give a full review of this tonight. I see no obvious issues on a surface read. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• "The college's frustrations grew after preservationist unsuccessfully attempted to pass laws" preservationist should be plural.--done
• The lead and legal challenge section should probably be split into two paragraphs. They're not overly long as is, but it would make for easier reading.--done
• "The history of both the City of Washington and Washington & Jefferson College [1]" That's a strange place for a ref; what exactly is it referencing/is it needed?
  • That was apparently a stray note to myself that was left over from the first draft. How embarrassing. I cut it.--GrapedApe (talk)
• Any notes on relations from 1868-1968? If nothing's around that's sourced I guess things were fine. Still, if issues came from the 1968 master plan, then in the lead, saying relations were strained "most" of the 20th century might be pushing it a bit, and could be reworded.
  • I couldn't find anything on that era.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "In the end, these several buildings, including several which were part of the historic district were demolished to make way for The Burnett Center and another effort to preserve Hays Hall were unsuccessful" a period needs to be at the end, but also, I read this sentence three or four times and not entirely getting it; needs rewording.
  • That was a wacky sentence. I think I had tried--unsuccessfully-- to combine two separate sentences into one. Now it's fixed.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Since both the court decision and the legislation preserve a large tax-exemption for colleges." Sentence fragment.--done
• You just use the last names on many judges; the full names would be preferred.--done
• Since it's been 12 years since the blueprint began, has there been a noticeable improvement in relations? If so, adding a bit on that would be a nice touch.
  • Good point. I searched for material on that, but there's nothing that specifically mentions the blueprint or how the relations have improved.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll put this on hold and pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)