Talk:Cyrus K. Holliday/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in 2005 and the GA requirements have been "tightened up", so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment is just a note to check in here. I'm the editor who got this article up to GA level originally; I will try to help keep it that way with the time that I have available to edit. My first thought on a quick glance is that the lead section is too short. I'll also take a look around my personal library to find additional reliable sources for data within the article and to add detail where needed. Slambo (Speak) 15:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slambo, thanks for checking in. At a quick glance, the biggest problem is, possibly, the lack of citations in the Santa Fe Railroad section. I always do the lead last; and I would tend to expand it myself rather than fail the review (if that was the only problem) - summarising a relatively short article such as this is not too hard. P.S. No great rush, I'm in the middle of doing two long WP:GANs; they will probably get done first. Pyrotec (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Education and early career -

• The claim that "Allegheny College's alumni records show Holliday receiving a Master's Degree in 1855" needs a citation.

• The Santa Fe Railroad -

• This section is unreferenced.

• The Lead needs expansion.

Pyrotec (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been nearly a month since the above comments.. is work going to be started on this soon? If not we'll have to delist it, can't stay on hold forever. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think 105 days is the going rate for Holds (for some people anyway). Pyrotec (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

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:

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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

After suscessful completion of the remedial actions above, I'm recording this article as "compliant" and am updating the Article History accordingly. Pyrotec (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)