 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania 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. |
| |
|
|
|
|
Review comments: M.K. 15:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
[edit] Failed GA Nomination
This article has failed GA nomination primarily on criteria 2(b) for insufficient references. There are large parts of all three sections that need to be referenced. Specifically, the historical aspects of the article and the 'most photographed' claim need citations. A much smaller issue is a couple of statements that are subjective evaluations. An example of this is the "most unusual in the exhibit" because this is a subjective statement. It should either be removed or quoted from a particular source. Otherwise, the article is interesting and readable and is close to GA status.-Dekkanar 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hello! You failed Palanga Amber Museum as GA and listed problems, I addressed them, particularly - introduced additional sources, reworded speculated sentences. Could you please take a look now - are you concerns solved by these adjustments. If so, do I need to renominated article again? Cheers, M.K. 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- After looking at the article with the changes that have been made, I agree that my concernes have been mostly addressed. I still think that there is room for improvement and more references, but I think that this probably meets the GA standards now. Renominating the article is your next step now. Good luck on future reviews! Dekkanar 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I made further improvements - added more refs, formated text and references. I hope that new GA review this article would pass :) M.K. 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note, the merge proposal should probably be either taken care of or removed if the article is to pass GA. Chubbles 03:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA PASS
I have reviewed the article, taking into account the past review and agree that the article meets most of the criteria listed under good article status. However I have two main concerns - relating to point 5 and point 6A - see WP:WIAGA.
- Firstly and most importantly there is a merge tag on this article. Until the merge is over and a consenus reached, ergo edits are made if a merge is agreed upon then the article is likely to change and is not stable i.e. "it does not change significantly from day to day". Therefore I have placed the application on hold, until the merge (and any large amount of edits) are over.
- Secondly I think the image captions need working on. Point 6A. For example, "Mere in the Amber Museum garden" - what is mere and what is it refering to?
Other than these two concerns, which can be quite easily addressed the article will pass as GA. LordHarris 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, starting from the first - the merge tag was placed by anon [1] without any explanations, then another related article appeared on main page, but I did not payed attention to it as I thought that merge tag would not hold GA nominations as guidelines of GA suggests: It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.. In other hand tag can be removed I think. Second point I am a not understanding it a bit. You asking that is Mere? If so Mere explanation. Could you explain this point a bit more? M.K. 13:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well I think you can remove the merge tag anyway, since its been there since the 8th April and no ones commented on it - including the anon who place it there without an explanation. As for the image caption I was confused, as I have never heard of the term mere except in the name of something e.g. Lake Windermere. To clarify it helps by wikilinking items within the caption e.g. mere as well as other things e.g. Birutė and Eglė. To help you edit the captions, have a look at Wikipedia:Captions. Thats all thats needed for GA. LordHarris 13:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Did some improvements to the captions. M.K. 13:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- This article is now GA status. To further improve to FA level, I recommend expanding some of the sections e.g. the exhibits section. Perhaps include a list of exhibits, perhaps a gallery of the rooms etc and maybe a few references about current exhibits etc. Good work. LordHarris 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your input. M.K. 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. It is short, but it covers all main aspects of the subject, and it is referenced throughout. Lampman (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
