Talk:Park Hall, Shetland/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review undertaken on this version of the article

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues with the tiny amount of information present
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Sectioned but barely any content in each, though there is a lead and no lists present
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Referenced but only got 2 which is generally unsufficient for a GA article
	2b. 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).	Each paragraph has a reference, though a mere 2 for the entire article
	2c. it contains no original research.	None evident
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	None evident
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Opposite of being broad
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There is barely any information on the top to focus onto
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It is neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	It's stable
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No images
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No images
	7. Overall assessment.	Quick fail, specifically on points 3 and 6 (additionally: insufficient coverage depth, inadaquate lead, clearly not broad enough and no infobox)

This is nowhere near GA in its current state for the clearly obvious reasons noted above. I would argue it may not even be notable enough to warrant an article of its own, as notability has not even been established or justified. Listed status does not mean a building automatically qualifies to have an article.

Thanks for this review. This has helped me understand what it will take to make a good article. This article will meet the standards in the future. JohnSmith678 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at the broadness of articles that are currently being passed as GA and/or look at GA-rated articles within the wikiprojects I assigned this article to, to understand what is required of a GA. This is barely started and has vast amounts of missing information, not to mention minimum expectations people expect on a GA article (that being, a suitable infobox and lead to introduce all areas); alot of expansion is still required. I'd advise submitting to a peer review when you have added significantly more content prior to listing for GA, so as to not clutter the GA nominees page before it's ready. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]