Talk:My Old Kentucky Home State Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is good. The only issue is the lead section, which is too short and doesn't provide a good summary of the article. If the lead can be improved to at least two paragraphs, summarizing things better, then I think the article would meet GA standards. See WP:LEAD.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations used are reliable and information is verifiable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article seems to cover the major topics of the history and architecture of the house well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written in a neutral tone. No WP:NPOV violations.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No stability issues, WP:3RR violations, or edit-warring are evident.

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

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

   All images are free and tagged appropriately. Captions are short, succinct and descriptive.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The only real issue here is that the lead section is too short. Once that is fixed the article should meet Good Article standards. I'll place this on hold until 2/26/2010 so that this can be addressed. WTF? (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead looks good now. The article meets the GA criteria. WTF? (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)