Talk:Taconic State Parkway
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Imzadi1979 in topic GA Review
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taconic State Parkway article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Taconic State Parkway was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Taconic State Parkway/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Reviewing later.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Someone yesterday, put in a bunch of "Citation needed" tags. I am currently working on those. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- No it's not. More than half of the route description is unreferenced, weasel words in the scenery section, there are two dead links, and 80% in the copy violation detector. This is very far away from passing as a Good Article. Failing until significant changes have been made.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Done AmericanAir88 (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@CycloneIsaac: You did not even give me a chance to fix the issues. A smart GA reviewer would state the issues and give them time, but you impulsively failed due to self interest. You did not allocate any time. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- If the reviewer feels that the issues can be fixed in a reasonable amount of time (the baseline suggestion is a week), then yes, I'd agree with you, AmericanAir88, that it should be put on hold for improvements. On the other hand, if the reviewer doesn't feel that that is possible, an immediate fail is a proper outcome. Just yesterday, I looked through the article and made some improvements to the various citations. There are four self-published sources that would need replacement before this could be promoted. Using improper or inappropriate sources is grounds for failure at GAN. Inadequate sourcing is also grounds for failure. I'd endorse the outcome of the review on those bases. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)