Talk:The Residences at The Ritz-Carlton (Philadelphia)/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems with quick fail criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • reasonably well written, I made one copy-edit. One point of concern: in th History section reference is made to E/R Associates and then further references are to E/R Partners. Consistency requires that one or other is used throughout. If they are different entities then this needs to be explained. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

Fixed. Medvedenko (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • No dead links.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Ref #7 is a personal web page, not RS. All other references OK.

While I feel the source is reliable, I tried to phase it out. One fact it referenced just backed up another source so I removed the ref, another fact it sources I can replace by this site, the third spot it is used is irreplaceable. I have never encountered an issue with the sources I have used before and wonder if you can give your advice on how to proceed. Medvedenko (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. • Tight I take it that we are now talking about ref #18. In the two places where it is used there appears to be another source. If it is a specific small detail, just comment that out until you find a source. There is no doubt that {http://phillyskyline.com/} is a psonal web site and thus not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

   Whoops I didn't have this on watch. Do you think the possible alternate ref I included in my above question is appropriate? I removed the facts in the way you said. Medvedenko (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

   • It thinks everything is fine now. It is a pity that the personal website is the only reference available for the garden features and the double glazing. Commenting out as you did is best, it means someone may well come up with a source in due course. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

2. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Just one non RS source, and clarification on E/R Associates - E/R Partners. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

   OK , all fixed, I am happy to pass this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and sorry for the late reply. Medvedenko (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)