Talk:Riverside and Avondale/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Teb00007 (talk · contribs) 03:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Initial Review

Please see WP:GACR for full details of the criteria mentioned below.

Y 1. Well-written

Y (a), Y (b)

Y 2. Verifiable with no original research

Y (a), N (b), Y (c)

Y 3. Broad in its coverage

Y (a), Y (b)

Y 4. Neutral

Y 5. Stable

Y 6. Illustrated, if possible

N (a), Y (b)

Comments

• 2.(b) - Riverside Avondale Preservation website has been used as a source for material that may otherwise be challenged. This website is a primary source and is biased. Please find a suitable alternative. All other sources seem fine.
• 6.(a) - File:Jacksonville Urban Core.png has no licensing tags

A full review will be undertaken in seven days, or once the comments above have been addressed.

Note: this initial review was not as in-depth as a full review will be. Just because some criteria has been ticked does not mean it will be at a full review. If you notice anything that can be improved, please do so.

--teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 14:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking this on. On 2. (b), I removed two cites to the webpage; the first was just to note the presence of the commercial districts, so it wasn't important, and the second just complimented the Wayne Wood book, as he didn't discuss both parks on the same page. However, I left in the third reference about the number of schools. I couldn't find any other source for that, and it didn't seem controversial. If it's a problem I'll just rewrite the line to remove the material that isn't cited to the dead-tree sources. As for 6. (a), it looks like the uploader tried to add the tags but they didn't format correctly. I fixed one, but couldn't figure out what the other was supposed to be. I left him a message to take a look at it. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The image liscences are now in order. I also removed that last citation to the preservation society's web page and removed the info on the elementary schools.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry it took me a few days to get back to this. I had an assignment due yesterday. The file seems fine to me now and I'll now do a thorough review of the page. It shouldn't take me more than two or three hours. Please leave a message on my talk page if I take any longer. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 18:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Full Review

Please see WP:GACR for full details of the criteria mentioned below.

Y 1. Well-written

Y (a), Y (b)

Y 2. Verifiable with no original research

Y (a), Y (b), Y (c)

Y 3. Broad in its coverage

Y (a), Y (b)

Y 4. Neutral

Y 5. Stable

Y 6. Illustrated, if possible

Y (a), Y (b)

Result: article passes and will be promoted to a good article. --teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 19:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• 1 (a) - no spelling or grammar issues. Clear and concise, and easy to read. No copyright violations found. One minor error in lead section, but I corrected this.
• 1 (b) - manual of style seems fine - lead section and layout of the article are okay. Words to watch okay, fiction and list policies don't apply.
• 2 - while the article relies heavily on one main source, there are sufficient additional reliable sources to meet verifiability criteria. However, additional sources will be required for featured article status.

• 2 (a) - layout of references is in keeping with style guidelines
• 2 (b) - all quotations are referenced. Anything that is likely to be challenged has been referenced. Additional sources may be necessary for FA status, particularly in regards to black segregation and claims of the neighbourhood being the most architecturally diverse in the state, but current references are sufficient for GA.
• 2 (c) - no obvious original research found. The article is well referenced and any opinions in the article are from reliable sources.
• 3 (a) - all of the main aspects of the neighbourhood are covered.
• 3 (b) - none of the sections go into unnecessary detail. A good overview of each aspect of the neighbourhood is provided.
• 4 - while certain parts of the article may seem to be bias, all of this is backed up by reliable references. The author does not seem to have shown any personal bias in the article and has attempted to maintain a neutral point of view.
• 5 - no major edits since June. No evidence of any past edit wars. All seems good.
• 6 (a) - all images have appropriate licences.
• 6 (b) - all images have appropriate captions and are relevant to the material they illustrate.

--teb00007 ^{Talk • Contributions} 19:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)