Talk:Rhyolite, Nevada/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Only one thing worries me here: a link to wikt:crib. I could not find a MOS rule that forbids interwikimedia links in prose and it's a fairly rare word, so I'm leaving it, but I don't feel right about it and it might be an issue for FAC.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   No problems here, just File:Charles M. Schwab - Project Gutenberg eText 17976.jpg, but that image turned out to miss the copyright era by three years.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

All in all, this is indeed a great article and I've really enjoyed reading it and found very few things to correct and nothing to report here, so it's in a way a quick-pass! You should start heading toward FA status. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do the review and for your kind words. I plan to take this to PR soon and then, if all goes well, to make a run at FA. I agree that the link to "crib" in Wiktionary is awkward. I don't think it's against the MoS rules, but it links to a complicated list of definitions. I might be able to find enough source material to do a short article on brothel cribs. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I modified the crib link to link to the specific entry on the wikt:crib page (wikt:crib#prostitution), but I believe an article could be a good idea, as I believe there is probably enough material to write one. Until then, I vouch for the link to remain. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That is much better. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)