Talk:Elmwood (Cambridge, Massachusetts)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Elmwood (Cambridge, Massachusetts) has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
November 6, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject United States / Massachusetts (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject National Register of Historic Places (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elmwood (Cambridge, Massachusetts)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

review
  • Very nicely done. The history, which appears to be a major factor in its acquiring historical status, is well presented.
  • One nitpick: "Wings housing more modern services" - I can't find this in the sources. Is there a better word than "wings" which doesn't seem to have an architectural meaning on wikipedia.
I changed "wings" to "additions". The second page, third paragraph of the nomination PDF documents the exterior changes to the house. (NB one of the additions is described as a "service ell", which I have perhaps liberally interpreted as housing "more modern services".) Magic♪piano 14:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I made some edits that you're free to change.[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    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:
    Pass!