Talk:Indiana World War Memorial Plaza/GA1

GA Review

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

Note from Jezhotwells

It seems that User:Chanakal accidentally started this review (below), so I have taken the under review 2nd opinion tag off. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chanakal's comments (not primary review)

Hi Reywas92, Here are some general comments to improve the article. Seems this would pass GAN easily. Nice work. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wikify National Park Service?
- Done for first instance
Why not "Accompanying seven photos from 1994" fully formatted?
- What do you mean? They accompany "National Historic Landmark Nomination: Indiana World War Memorial Plaza Historic District" and have the same author, publisher, etc.
Bodenhamer, David J. (1994). The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis. Indiana University Press. p. 762-763. ISBN 9780253312228. Retrieved 2008-12-29.-> pp. 762-763
- Done
Bodenhamer 291-> Bodenhamer p.291
- Done
Bodenhamer 254-> Bodenhamer p.254
- Done
Waymarking. 9/14/2009 -> revise date format
- Done
pp. 41 -> p. 41 use Template:Page numbers
- Done
6/10/2009 needs formatting
- Done
Retrieved 2009-06-12. old date formatting for ref temp
- Done

Thanks! Any commments on the content or writing? Reywas92^Talk 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd loved to review the content. But I'm afraid, My knowledge on American memorials is inadequate. Apart from Lincoln memorial I've no knowledge of others. :( Writing seems fine. All the best with the review.--Chanaka L (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean. But as someone learning about this for the first time, is there anything unclear or missing that you might have a question about? By the way, you're supposed to mark that you're reviewing this article at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. You can pass or put the article on hold or you can ask for a second opinion; that page has the directions if you haven't done it before. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My intention was to leave you some comments, not to initiate the actual review. I thought more experienced reviewer might come along and do that. Yeah, since I haven't done this before I thought it would be inappropriate to review this. That's why I left the comments on talk page rather than creating the review page. Hope nothing wrong with what I've done. Nevertheless, Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No you're fine. You're always welcome to leave GA comments. If you don't yet feel comfortable closing it, you can just add #: {{GAReview|status=2nd opinion}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added. But keep watching this. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Review

Very nice, well-written article. It covers the monument and its development accurately and completely. I think it's mostly there in terms of the six good article criteria, and can be promoted pending some minor adjustments.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
A few minor copyedits, but it's mostly written to the standards of wikipedia.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Two minor issues with citations that need to be cleared up. Please refer to the 'citation needed' tags I added to the article. These items appear to be critical facts that may be challenged or likely to be challenged, based on WP:WIAGA.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers the key aspects of the memorial.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
I cannot see any major WP:NPOV issues.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
There is no evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations.
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):
The images are all tagged and captioned appropriately. It would be nice to add an image of the Veterans Memorial Plaza, but I don't think it's absolutely critical for GA.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article comes very close to meeting the six good article criteria and will be placed on hold until 3/1/2010 so that the issues raised may be addressed. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Memorial Plaza is actually the bottom half of the infobox image. I added a new ref for one of the tags and copied another for the rest. Thanks for the review! Reywas92^Talk 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! That was stupid! ;-) Anyway, thanks for clarifying the references. It looks like the article now meets all six GA criteria and can be passed! Nice work! WTF? (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]