Talk:Trafford Park/GA1

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Epicadam in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Review by epicAdam:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance:  
  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:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Citations: Are there any references available for the following areas? I usually like to find citations for specific dates, statistics, etc.:

Is this information really necessary?: "Like any commercial enterprise, Trafford Park Estates had to generate an income for its investors; it could not afford simply to wait for prospective tenants to come forward, and so the park's existing assets had to be made use until more tenants were found."

  • I've removed a lot of that. I think it's important to make the point about the existing assets being (temporarily) employed while the Estates Company was trying to find tenants, but the lead up to it is pretty fluffy, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Overall another truly excellent article. Once the few issues from above are resolved, I have no problem promoting to GA on the spot. Best always, epicAdam (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for the problem with the quote. I was using one of those automated scripts and I didn't catch that. -epicAdam (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another impeccable article with excellent prose, sources, and illustrations. GA class indeed. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply