Talk:Cottage garden/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

What is a good article?[edit]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments[edit]

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

Prose doesn't flow. Needs brushing up.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Lead section appears short.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.

It appears to use information from sources, though sources and information have not yet been researched.
Well referenced SilkTork *YES! 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

It could do with more detail.
Very detailed. A good read. SilkTork *YES! 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Difficult to determine potential bias without fully getting to grips with the topic. Sources and topic needs to be examined. Currently article doesn't provide assistance in accessing source material.
Good referencing gives confidence in the text. SilkTork *YES! 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Article is stable.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Images are usable, but captioning is weak, and it is not fully clear why the Woburn Street image is used.
Captioning is good. SilkTork *YES! 19:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 23:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initial inspection. Article contains in-line references, though these are to books, with no Google Books links. The article is fairly short for a topic that would have a substantial amount of material. It is rather crowded with images - though that may be appropriate for such a topic. Lead section is fairly short, and there appears to be an imbalance of history and description of types of cottage garden. The impression so far is that this is an undeveloped article with some potential. Text in each section appears to be lifted out of context, and as such doesn't always quite make sense. "One theory is that they arose out of the Black Death of the 1340s, when the death of so many laborers made land available for small cottages with personal gardens." is the opening sentence of the first section. The article is mainly the work of one user: User:First Light, who has been working solo on the article since June 2008. This is not a quick fail, though is likely to require some work to meet the criteria for GA SilkTork *YES! 23:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough going over of the article. 1). I can find and add Google Books links. At the time, I didn't know it was necessary or proper form. 2). I was aware that the article might be shortish for a GA, but didn't see what specifically could be expanded, since the cottage garden is more of a general idea or philosophy. There are nearly as many specific types of cottage gardens as there are cottage gardeners, to exaggerate a bit to make the point. Any thoughts on where to expand would be appreciated. 3). I understand your comment regarding the lead, and will work on that. I also see that some of the sections need an introductory sentence (such as the one you quote). 4). Re: Photos, since the article is about something that is visual, in the end, I thought the more the better. The only images that were somewhat gratuitous, in my opinion, were the individual flowers in the last section. Any others that you think don't visually demonstrate something in the article could be removed also. 5). Indeed, I've been pretty much going solo on the article. It's an area that doesn't seem to draw much interest. I just posted a note at WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening to see if there is any interest there in helping to improve the article. I'll go at it myself, in pieces, during the next several days. Thanks. First Light (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) It's not a requirement to use internet references - it's simply helpful to the reader if you can direct them to an online version of the book, and if possible to the actual page. In the case of this topic, which is well served by internet sources, it is not necessary to have the references exclusively in book form. 2) I've started to give some suggestions below. Also, take a look at List of garden types and Category:Gardens - some of those articles could well be copied into here, or better still, a general tidying up and merging could take place, using Garden design as the parent article]]. 3) Good. As you expand the main body of the article, make sure that you update the lead. 4) If you expand the plant section, you might well find that you need more images of plants. It's always a question of judgement. At the moment it clearly is a bit crowded. I may do something about that myself in a moment. 5) I sympathise with you on that score. Some people thrive on having an article to themselves to work on. Others love the motivation that comes from shared group work. I kind of hover between the two. I'll do a little bit on this, and then leave you to it for a while. I haven't finished looking at the article yet, but it's clear that it's not going to meet the criteria for GA. I'm thinking of not failing it, but of putting it on hold for a month to see if you can get some support. SilkTork *YES! 16:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns arising.
  1. Main concern is that the article is undeveloped and is little more than start class. I think that after examination it will move up a class, and may become C or B. But there appears to be too much work for this to become GA within a reasonable space of time.
  2. I'd like to see where this article fits into the other gardening articles. Is it a sub-article of Garden design? If so, there should be cross links, and a summary section within Garden design.
  3. The See also section appears rather random and needs attention. Why have those articles been chosen?
  4. While the article is clearly helped by images, care needs to be taken in the selection, amount, placement and captioning of the images. See other GA articles for examples of how images can be used.
  5. There are a lot of useful online sites [1] that could be used for ideas on how to shape and develop the article, and which will also be a rich and handy source of readily accessible references.
  6. It is not helpful to the article itself that the related gardening articles are unclear stubs - Residential garden, Kitchen garden, Potager garden, etc - whose status needs sorting.
  • Addressing concerns.
  1. Expand article by developing or introducing sections on design, layout, pathing, plants, etc
  2. Pay attention to parent article - Garden design - and introduce a summary section in that article which links to this one.
  3. Consider carefully which articles are related, and trim the See also section.
  4. Examine other GA article to see how images are used.
  5. Research online sources for ideas and sources which can be used in the article. Also, use Google Books.
  6. Merge related stub articles (perhaps into one of two parent articles - Garden design / Garden)
  • Conclusion.

Putting article on hold until 1 February 2009 to allow concerns to be addressed and the article to be developed. SilkTork *YES! 16:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New appraisal[edit]

There's been some excellent work done on this. I was reading it through last night and enjoying it. There is a lot of solid information there. Well done! I will set to and closely re-examine it in the next couple of days. SilkTork *YES! 18:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw from your talk page that you are a busy person, so feel free to get to this as you can. There's no deadline from my end. First Light (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There are areas still to work on - a cottage garden contains vegetables and fruits, such as runner beans, tomatoes, etc. The history of the cottage garden could be developed, and there could be more modern examples, and different designs. However, this now covers the main aspects of GA criteria and has passed as a Good Article. Well done! SilkTork *YES! 19:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cottage_garden/GA1&oldid=1091475155"