Talk:Arrivé/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for good article status. I'll run through the six criteria and list any issues under the respective criterion, and I'll give a summary at the end. If it meets the standards on first review, I'll pass it; if it needs some cleanup to reach GA status, I'll give seven days for that cleanup to occur. Icebob99 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

My first thought on this article is that it will have to lose its GA status sometime in the future, since the building isn't yet finished and once it becomes finished and in operation, it will have information that will need to fall under the broad coverage criterion, requiring either more expansion or delisting. My initial recommendation to the nominator (SounderBruce) is that this article be listed as Future-class, but I will continue on reviewing the article since right now there are no problems. Icebob99 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Going through the criteria one at a time:

1. Well-written: prose quality looks good. Meets MoS guideline for lead, layout, words to watch; no fiction involved, no list incorporation needed.
2. Verifiable: reflist present, statistics cited with just about everything else; no original research apparent, no copyvios found.
3. Broad: Right now, it covers everything, thus meeting this criterion. In January 2019, however, the article will fail this criterion. Again, that doesn't mean a fail right now, so I'll keep on reviewing. Just keep it in mind.
4. Neutrality looks good.
5. Stability: good, last edit was on 3 November 2016
6. Images: has an image, licensing is OK.

Since this article meets the all the criteria, it officially passes, with the caveat that it will either be modified or delisted when construction is finished or significant developments occur. Icebob99 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Thanks for volunteering to finally review this article. I have to disagree with listing this article as Future Class and pulling the nomination, as there are several GAs and FAs for infrastructure articles whose subjects are not yet complete (e.g. the Second Avenue Subway station articles in NYC). An article can be broad in scope while continually updated (which I have promised to do, by nominating this) and keeping to GA standards. SounderBruce 18:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: sounds good, I was unaware of that precedent. I have no problems as long as it stays updated. Thanks for nominating. Icebob99 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.