Talk:Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

This appears to be a thoroughly well-developed article and my initial impression is that it is well overdue for Good Article status.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    (a) The article is reasonably well written, and makes appropriate use of structure, hatnotes and wikilinks to provide context. Green tick.svg
    (b) The article complies with the MOS for lead sections. (Comment: The current lead section passes the GA criteria but could be improved by (1) explaining what the District is (an area of land? a collection of buildings?) and (2) explaining the scale of the area, possibly by incorporating the acreage information from the infobox.) Green tick.svg
    (b) The article complies with the MOS for layout. (Comment: Personally I prefer to see References appear above Notes but the MOS informs me there is no consensus for this preference.) Green tick.svg
    (b) The article complies with the MOS for word choice. Green tick.svg
    (b) The MOS for fiction is not applicable to this article. Green tick.svg
    (b) The article complies with the MOS for embedded lists. Green tick.svg
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    (a) The article complies with our policies on formatting references and uses citation templates when appropriate. Green tick.svg
    (b) The article provides inline citations against all outstanding statements, statements likely to be challenged, and direct quotes, and as far as I am able to determine the cited sources support the article content. Green tick.svg
    (c) There is no evidence of original research in the article. Green tick.svg
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    (a) The article covers all the areas of content I would expect to find in an article of this sort. Green tick.svg
    (b) The article does not provide an unnecsesary level of detail. Green tick.svg
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article appears to be neutral in tone and present all notable viewpoints without bias. Green tick.svg
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    As of this writing the article appears to be stable and is not the subject of substantial unresolved disputes. Green tick.svg
  6. 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):
    (a & b) All images used in the article now have appropriate licensing information and descriptive text. Green tick.svg
    (a & b) I'd personally like to see alt text for all images (currently none have alt text) but upon further reading it appears this is specifically not a requirement for Good Article status. Symbol neutral vote.svg (Not required for GA status.)
  7. Overall: This is a thorough, well referenced and well illustrated article, and I am passing it as a Good Article. Issues to concentrate on for future improvement may include a lead section that more extensively covers the basic geometry of the area (its size, boundaries, etc), and the provision of alt text for the article's many images. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)