Talk:Rhyolite, Nevada/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Only one thing worries me here: a link to wikt:crib. I could not find a MOS rule that forbids interwikimedia links in prose and it's a fairly rare word, so I'm leaving it, but I don't feel right about it and it might be an issue for FAC.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
No problems here, just File:Charles M. Schwab - Project Gutenberg eText 17976.jpg, but that image turned out to miss the copyright era by three years.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

All in all, this is indeed a great article and I've really enjoyed reading it and found very few things to correct and nothing to report here, so it's in a way a quick-pass! You should start heading toward FA status. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do the review and for your kind words. I plan to take this to PR soon and then, if all goes well, to make a run at FA. I agree that the link to "crib" in Wiktionary is awkward. I don't think it's against the MoS rules, but it links to a complicated list of definitions. I might be able to find enough source material to do a short article on brothel cribs. Finetooth (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the crib link to link to the specific entry on the wikt:crib page (wikt:crib#prostitution), but I believe an article could be a good idea, as I believe there is probably enough material to write one. Until then, I vouch for the link to remain. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is much better. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]