Talk:Hartsdown Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hartsdown Park has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
December 6, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
December 20, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

GA review[edit]

  1. It is well written. In this respect:
    (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct
     Done Absolutely. The peer review picked up any problems I could find
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
     Done Can't find any faults.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
    (a) 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;
     Done Well referenced, decent variety of reliable sources in the reference section.
    (b) at minimum, 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;
     Done Good referencing, nothing contentious unreferenced.
    (c) contains no original research.
     Done No WP:OR here sir.
  3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
    (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;
     Done Yes, of course.
    (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
     Done Yes.
  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
     Done Won't change much at all, no edit wars or anything else, it's flying below the radar I think.
  6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:
    (a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and
     Done Yes.
    (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.
     Done Yes.

Overall, I can't fault it against the GA criteria so I'll promote to GA now. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hartsdown Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)