Talk:Cornell Botanic Gardens/GA3

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast _(talk) 16:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The overall impression that I have after reading the article is that general tone of the text may be overly praising of the plantation. However, I can find no specific peacock statements and the article does contain sources of criticism, so I do not think it is something that I can deny GA status on account of. However, it might be something that should be looked into further if this article goes for FA review.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   While not necessary for GA, I think this article could be improved by adding some sort of map. Because it seems that various lands were donated to the college over time, I wonder if the plantations are continuous or existing in various portions. How close are they to the school and other nearby towns?

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I can see how much this article has progressed since its last GAreview and am impressed by the amount of work that has gone into the article. Good work!

Thanks very much for the review, and good point about a map being useful. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.