Talk:Princes Street, Dunedin/GA1

GA Review

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to promote this article to GA status.

---

Reviewers: RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC) and Swarm ^X 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1.Well written:

a) Clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar is correct;

b) It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accuarate and verifiable:

a) There are plenty of references;

b) Plenty of references, from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

c) And no original research -

3. Broad in its coverage

a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Maybe!

4. Neutral:

It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias;

5. Stable

Not really changing, some bot edits, but not edit wars.

6. Illustrated by images - only 7 images on whole page including a map, field, buildings and a blue plaque; but they are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions; all copyright and everything.

Now, there are nine s, and three s, so the majority speaks for itself! This has a good chance of getting to Good Article status!

A few things here and there but all in all...

Please reply to the discussion below.Rcsprinter (talk) - (Reviewer) 17:26 2 February 2011

Hi Rcsprinter123 - first, thanks for reviewing the article. Most of the problems seem to be with section 3 - breadth of coverage. Any suggestions as to what needs to be done to improve this? Also, as far as photos are concerned, it would be easy to take more photos of Princes Street as it is today - the problem is finding copyright free early images, which would I think be the best addition to the article. Again, any opinions opn photos would be welcome. Grutness...wha? 21:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Grutness - what needs doing is:

• A little to much history perhaps;could leave if it is important, as I wouldn't know as I have never been to New Zealand; but just seems a bit long;
• Photos - really isn't a problem. For copyright you could take them yourself. GA.

RCSprinter123 (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do - thanks again! Grutness...wha? 05:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed the history section a bit - most of it is worthwhile, given the street's historic significance, but one paragraph (on transport) deserved its own section, and some of the rest I managed to trim slightly. Grutness...wha? 06:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've reviewed the article. I won't make another checklist; I'll just share my thoughts. It looks like five of the listed books in the references section don't have ISBN numbers. Would it be possible to track those down? It would also be good if you could put together a 'See also' section. If you feel that would be futile or too difficult for some reason, I'll take your word for it, but if you can it would be best. Also, what do you think about changing the "Geography" section to "Route" or "Location" or something like that? I'll leave this up to you, it's merely a minor suggestion. Swarm ^X 02:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Swarm -

• ISBNs - of the five books, one is so old that it has no ISBN, and two of the others don't seem to have either (they are small publications which may not actually have them - certainly none is mentioned either in them or online anywhere. The other two i managed to find ISBNs for online, but even then one of the numbers looks a bit suspect. At least one more has a valid number listed, though.
• Either Route or Location would work just as well - "Route" would probably be the better choice, so I've changed it to that.
• I'll see what I can come up with for a "See also" section.

Cheers, Grutness...wha? 08:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OK then; This is going well.

• ISBN numbers - hadn't noticed that. I'll take Grutness's word for it he can't find them, but well done Swarm for noticing. GA.
• The Route section is a good rename - takes out the meaning more than Geography. A thought though - if it had been kept as Geography, wouldn't the correct grammar be Geographical Word instead. (Not that I want to change it; Route is fine).
• And the See Also section is building.

I might call this one a Good Article soon. I'll need Swarm's opinion, but for now -

RCSprinter123 (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, everything's looking good. Looks like RCSprinter and I are agreed, so I'll go ahead and list it. One moment, please. Swarm ^X 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Swarm ^X 20:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks there we go then. The end. RCSprinter123 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2011 (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.