Talk:Brook Farm/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
In the "Roles of women" subsection, I think something has gone wrong with the last sentence...

Fixed... there was a small error in footnote code. Good catch! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Could you please change the two book refs for which you have full citations in-line into split refs to match the others?

I usually don't do that unless the source is referred to multiple times (i.e. more than two). As far as I know, this is an acceptable way to do it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A very well written article! Just a couple of comments on prose and references, and when those are resolved, I will be happy to pass this article to GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! I've been so inactive on WP for a while, I had forgotten I had nominated this article. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. As for the references, I'm not going to argue over them, because really they're not a huge deal. Normally, though, I point people to WP:References, where (to paraphrase) it says it doesn't matter which style is used (Harvard, split ref, full ref) etc, as long as the article remains internally consistent. However, as I say, it's not a huge deal, and I assume if someone's really ready to fight about it you'll hear it if/when you take the article to FAC! Very nice work - this is one of the easiest to read and understand articles I've seen at GAN in a while. Dana boomer (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]