Talk:Elmwood (Cambridge, Massachusetts)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

review

• Very nicely done. The history, which appears to be a major factor in its acquiring historical status, is well presented.

• One nitpick: "Wings housing more modern services" - I can't find this in the sources. Is there a better word than "wings" which doesn't seem to have an architectural meaning on wikipedia.

I changed "wings" to "additions". The second page, third paragraph of the nomination PDF documents the exterior changes to the house. (NB one of the additions is described as a "service ell", which I have perhaps liberally interpreted as housing "more modern services".) Magic♪piano 14:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I made some edits that you're free to change.[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   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:

   Pass!

• Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)