Talk:Lamu Fort/GA1

Lamu Museum redirect?

Lamu Museum redirects to this article. However this does not seem to be the same 'Lamu Museum' shown here (and which has 'Lamu Museum' over its entrance): http://www.museums.or.ke/58-2/ Or are the two very close to each other? (My interest is that I am trying to determine which museum James De Vere Allen was once the curator of, as noted on on the back cover of 'Swahili Origins') 82.152.154.86 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I look forward to reviewing this article and will began within the next 48 hours.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• First thought, just a suggestion not required - perhaps some type of pronunciation guide for the word Lamu (either IPA or standard dictionary-style phonetics) and its source language. Lamu looks simple, but I don't know if it's "LAH-moo" or "LAY-moo". More to follow.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Huldra: would be best to answer that one/♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

General assessment

This is a great article, and we should both be thankful to Google Books and archive.org for making the sources easily accessible (I often think they're a resource comparable to or more important to assembled accessible knowledge than the Library at Alexandria).

The article is well-written and solidly sourced, with a consistent reference style, and I see no indication of content that is violates original research or synthesis policies (satisfies criteria 2). Article comprehensively covers the subject and achieves the desired balance of summary and detail (satisfies criteria 3) Article is neutral with no indication of bias or POV issues (satisfies criteria 4); appears to be stable with no indication of content disputes, edit-warring, tendentious editing, etc. (satisfies criteria 5); and is illustrated by appropriate images per IUP (satisfies criteria 6, enumerated below).

Per Criteria 1: The article is well-written, clear and concise. I see no issues with spelling or grammar. There is no indication of any copyvio or close paraphrasing after reviewing the sources provided. I do have one minor comment regarding consistency below, but am confident that would be satisfied quickly. (satisfies criteria 1a, minor comment). I think the article's lede is sufficient per MOS. I assert the policies/guidelines on words to watch, fiction and list incorporation considerations are not relevant to this article. As for layout, I have a minor question regarding a brief section and a not-required suggestion on external links. (generally satisfies criteria 1b, minor question)

Image check

Four images used in the article, all are in compliance with WP:IUP with appropriate use rationales, and satisfies criteria 6.

• File:LamuFort.jpg - user created photograph, CC3.0/GNU release, GOOD.
• File:Kenya location map.svg - user created map, CC3.0/GNU release, GOOD.
• File:Lamu fort in 1892 by Adolph Jacob Hertz 1865-1912.png - over 100-yr-old PD photograph/modern publication, sufficient 2D reproduction fair use rationale - GOOD.
• File:Lamu fort in 1892 by Adolph Jacob Hertz 1865-1912 (b).png - over 100-yr-old PD photograph/modern publication, sufficient 2D reproduction fair use rationale - GOOD.

Just a few issues

• Consistency. The article is "Lamu Fort", but in there are usages of Lamu fort, and Fort Lamu--I think the usage should be consistent through the article, and if there's an issue where a source renders it one way, a paraphrase of "the fort" would be preferable to inconsistency.

Done, yup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is there an appropriate external link to the Lamu Fort site or museum?

I don't think so, only Kenyan museums website . I've added that.

• The "Present Use" section is rather short for a stand-alone section, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" - would it be better to include it as the conclusion of the history section--since it's material is relevant to its recent transition into its museum role.

Merged into history, agreed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessing more per Criteria 1 next. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Minor C1 issues added above. After the nominator's response, I foresee promotion to GA.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

All addressed I believe, the pronunciation thing would be an afterthought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good, promoted per comments above and template below.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   An excellent article and well worthy of that GA green thingy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@ColonelHenry: Review much appreciated Colonel, many thanks for dat green thingy..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)