Talk:Fraser Mansion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a couple very minor edits, this was an easy pass. Aaron north (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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:

Comments

It is clear to me that a lot of work and research went into this article. Generally it isn't too terribly difficult to improve an architecture article up to GA quality (assuming the building is not unusually important), but I'm still impressed with all the research that went into bringing out the history of Fraser mansion. It is also well-written. Rather than a dry collection of facts and dates it is organized in a way that reads like a story of the building. Everything is well-sourced and appears accurate. My only other comment is I'm not sure if all 4 outdoor images are really necessary. It might be nice to have an indoor picture of one of the main rooms as a substitute for one of the 3 similar-looking historical pictures, but I'm not sure if a free or fair use image is available. Aaron north (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have images of some areas of the building that I took that I can upload, however, I don't think they're all that good, honestly. See here for how the images look at low-res. They were taken with my cell phone during a furniture sale after the Church of Scientology moved to their new location, and so the building is in a bit of disarray. If you still think I should add a few, I'll add some, but that's all I've got. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, those pictures probably wouldn't work. The article is certainly still fine for GA status as it is, but if there is a really nice interior picture available it would be an improvement. Aaron north (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]