Talk:Groom Mine

Latest comment: 5 years ago by RightCowLeftCoast in topic WP:GOCE work

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Groom Mine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'll get to it this weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Source review

edit

Spotcheck

edit

Using a random number generator, I have spotchecked the following

  • 27: Good (with #21)
  • 12a: Page numbers should be 7-1 or 7-2 or corresponding similar number. Good
  • 29a: cannot find anything about it being the first test not good
  • 20:good. Why not give the depth of both (seeing as there are only two)
  • 16: Good

Prose

edit
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

WP:GOCE work

edit

@Baffle gab1978 and Sturmvogel 66: is there any other additional work I need to do before going to WP:FAC?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'd want to see if there's been any compensation paid to the Sheahans since 2017, but otherwise looks OK. Though you may get hit on quality of sourcing again, FYI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Sturmvogel 66:, unfortunately, no news on that front; the most recent thing about the subject of this article was a small blurb in Reader's Digest.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough; I'd add something that says "as of this date, nothing further is known about the exact compensation paid" though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Sturmvogel 66:, done.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply