Talk:Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

- I will review the article within the next couple of days.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 00:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks!-- ɱ    (talk)  00:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments
The article is well-written, contains interesting information about Beechwood's history, expansion, and transformation into a condominium complex! It follows Manual of Style guidelines for sections, layout, words to watch and other GA well-written criteria. The content is verifiable, with inline citations to reliable, secondary sources. There is no evidence of original research. It focuses on the main aspects of the topic, without going into unnecessary detail. The article has been wonderfully expanded since this April, 2014 version. There's no evidence of edit-warring. The images are properly tagged. Your experience with GA articles shows - you made the review an easy one!

Style/layout/images

 * The images sandwich the text, see MOS/Images Location section. Perhaps they could be 1) justified at the right margin or 2) placed within the sections at relevant paragraphs, where that's possible (columns, etc.), so that the images are formatted like the "Sides of the house" gallery is in the "Description" section.
 * In addition, the article seems to have a high image to content ratio. Perhaps a selection of some of the most salient images could be selected, and readers could go to the to view other images. That might be addressed, though, through use of packed galleries within the article. See what you think.
 * Addressing both of these; I know the current format isn't ideal, but there are so many useful images of the estate worth having that I probably wouldn't want any removed. The images are probably even more valuable than the text, given that this is an article about a mansion known for its architecture and design; that's a strong reason why it's still standing, and why it was added to the NRHP. I'll try experimenting with multiple image templates and get back to you.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In an attempt to "be bold" to help move the GA review forward, I took a stab at an approach that: 1) keeps all the images, 2) situates the images close to relevant text, 3) solves the "sandwich" issue, 4) distributes the images better throughout the article (rather than clumped at the top of the article). See what you think.


 * It could absolutely be changed into the Template:Multiple image. Also see the Infobox at the top of the Ukiyo-e article for another option for putting images in tables... I've used both (table, multiple images) approaches and am happy to help with either approach if you like one of the alternative approaches better.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this looks good. Thanks for the help!-- ɱ    (talk)  00:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. Closed, discussion is complete-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Content

 * Intro: "A developer purchased it, restoring and splitting the house for three condominiums in the early 1980s" - comma after condominiums to isolate the phrase
 * I actually disagree with this one; it reads "a developer purchased it" as one clause, and the other is "restoring...the house...in the early 1980s". The "in the 80s" part more refers to the restoration and splitting.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How about: "A developer purchased it in the 1980s, restoring and splitting the house for three condominiums."?
 * okay.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Contemporily" does not seem appropriate for films made in the 1970s
 * Well, for a house from the 1700s, it really is very contemporary. I don't know how else or better to state this, but I think it's okay, given that context.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I get the point that you're moving from historic times to modern time, but "Contemporarily" is a little confusing. Doesn't the sentence work without that word?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, looking back on it, I remember that I wrote that to try to describe the notable aspects of the house. While it hosted a rich banker and a religious fanatic in its early days, the only notable thing contemporarily that it is known for is as the setting of these films.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * History: "Matthews" is used numerous times, perhaps "he" could be used as an alternative in a couple of places.
 * fixed.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Looks good!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Also in History: Regarding "Robertson designed the expansions " - the previous sentence sounds like there was one expansion. Were there multiple expansions by Robertson?
 * fixed.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ yep, looks good-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is Matthew's "host" Benjamin Folger? Same sentence - is "used" meant to mean that he "spent" all the money / was broke?
 * changed 'used' to 'spent', and Folger deeded the property to Matthews, I don't believe that makes him his host.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What does "host" mean, then?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, looking back, I see that I used the word further along in that paragraph. While at that time, Folger had already given the estate to Matthews, it seems the original source still described Folger as his host. I'll just replace 'host' with 'Folger'.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * fixed.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Matthews was found guilty of assaulting his grown daughter, and served a short jail term" - either remove the comma or change "served"--> "he served"
 * done.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As an option: You may want to add a short statement that Vanderlip was a major landowner for Rancho Palos Verdes, California, owning most of the property there. See here, here and here for some sources if you're looking to add something to the article.
 * I never saw any mention of this in any publication that also mentions Briarcliff, including the many histories its historical committees and society has published. There's evidently nothing linking the two, clearly Vanderlip developed Rancho Palos Verdes either long before or long after he lived in Beechwood. I don't see why it should be mentioned here. And it is already mentioned on Vanderlip's Wiki article.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, it was just an option - not anything needed for the review.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my fault, . Carole had asked for my advice on this review and while searching around for sources I discovered the RPV thing and noticed it wasn't mentioned in our article on RPV. In my excitement I offered it as an offhand suggestion. :) Protonk (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ closing this item.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In the last paragraph of the History section, vice president does not need to be capitalized, since it's not used as part of his name. See MOS capitalization of titles of people (example: Mitterrand was the French president).
 * done.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 15:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In the description section, what do you think about using this Wiktionary link: eponymous?
 * Some Wikipedians are very strict on this, and I usually agree with them: Wikipedia is meant to be a professional resource, often for the well-educated. We have the Simple English wiki for those who can't grasp simple concepts and words like eponymous. I believe that word has entered the educated adult's lexicon.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think eponymous is common. I googled it when I was reading the article.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you weren't offended then, but I stand by my reasoning that it is common. Occasionally people don't always know words that others may think of as common; just depends on what you've read and what you've studied. For a truly accurate judgement, we'd ask a number of unrelated individuals to read a text containing the word and then ask them what they'd google.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

 * I know that this might have occurred due to contributions by another editor, but based upon this check of one web page, please check for Close paraphrasing issues with that web source (the others are fine) and the books. Here's one example:
 * main house to three condominiums and built an additional 34 units on the property the rolling lawns of the estate that were once used (NYT)
 * components for three condominiums and built an additional 34 condominium units on the property description edit the 80 acre 32 ha private parkland was (Wikipedia)
 * I have checked this. Various users have different opinions and recommendations on how much can match up; in this case seven words match up. That's no cause for concern, and it falls well below my standards against plagiarism.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting response, when you say you've checked this - what do you mean?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I can safely say that all of the text from before I started editing here has been altered for better wording and integration. And while I was writing the rest of it, I was careful to make sure that nothing was too close to the original source. Do a couple spot checks if you'd like; I encourage it.-- ɱ    (talk)  02:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To delve into one of the items on the dupe report,
 * The article says:
 * In the intro: "A developer purchased it in the 1980s, restoring and splitting the house for three condominiums; 34 additional condominium units were then built on the property, and the estate remains as a condominium complex"
 * In the history section: "In the early 1980s, the estate was sold to a developer who restored the house and split it into its original components for three condominiums and built an additional 34 condominium units on the property."
 * The New York Times article says: "In the early 1980's, the 33-acre estate was sold to a developer who converted the main house to three condominiums and built an additional 34 units on the property."

There are some tweaks that can be made to the intro, but it's definitely better. The real issue is with the statement in the history section where the difference between the NYT and Wikipedia articles are minimal
 * Analysis
 * "In the early 1980s, the 33-acre estate was sold to a developer who restored converted the main house and split it into its original components for to three condominiums and built an additional 34 condominium units on the property."


 * Suggestions
 * Intro: "The property is now a 37-condominium complex as the result of a development project that began in the 1980s." (Comment: The order of some of the words are changed, it's a summary, and is differentiated a bit from the info that will be read in the history section.)


 * History: "Three condominiums were built during a transformation of the mansion in the 1980s. A later expansion resulted in a total of 37 condominiums on the property's 33 acres.

You may very likely have a different approach for how you'd like to reword the sentences - but at least you have a couple of examples to consider.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 23:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and made the change to the article, because I thought that would probably resolve 3 duplicate hits on the report. Of course, feel free to word them, though, as you'd prefer. The only remaining sentence that needs to be looked at on the dupe report is:
 * "...the small... stone gazebo built by the Vanderlips is occasionally used for wedding ceremonies." (article)
 * "A small, moated stone gazebo built by the Vanderlip family has also been preserved and is sometimes used for wedding ceremonies." (New York Times)


 * That will finish off the web sources, and just leave the books to check. You may question whether this is close paraphrasing, but by definition it appears to be. If you disagree, though, we can definitely ask for a third opinion.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 06:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for your help so far. With the gazebo sentence, I kept all of the important information: 'gazebo', 'stone', 'small', 'built by Vanderlips', and 'sometimes used for wedding ceremonies'. The only similarity with the NYT sentence is how those facts are arranged within the sentence, and I don't think there's any better way to arrange those simple descriptive facts and still be concise. There can be exceptions to the plagiarism/close paraphrasing rules if it's a simple statement of facts like that.-- ɱ    (talk)  20:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at three options / approaches: Of course, again, feel free to reword any of these that best suit you.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The Vanderlip's stone gazebo is sometimes the site for wedding ceremonies. (changed order)
 * 2) Beechwood, named for the estate's trees, is the site of wedding ceremonies, which feature the stone gazebo built by the Vanderlips. (integrated other info)
 * 3) The formal gardens and stone gazebo, erected by the Vanderlips, have been preserved and feature in wedding ceremonies that occur on the property. (integrated info)
 * I think those options are needlessly wordy such that a GOCE reviewer would likely cut it back down to how it is now, but I'll take it. Thanks for your help.-- ɱ    (talk)  23:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to reword the sentence any way that you would like to as long as it's not a close paraphrasing issue. In the meantime, I'm glad that you brought up the Guild of Copy Editors because this might be a good opportunity to bring them in to make sure that the suggestions that I brought up do address close paraphrasing.


 * In addition, there are still the books. Based upon the comments that there aren't close paraphrasing issues when there was a report that says that there are concerns, I'm a little leery about going on blind faith, but their input might be helpful there, too. I was also given the name of someone who might help us out or the talk page for close paraphrasing. I'll check around and see if we can get someone to help us out.


 * We're so close to getting this moved to GA pass - it would be great to make that happen soon.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 02:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It made sense to go directly to the Close paraphrasing folks, so I posted a request at WP talk:CP Beechwood (Vanderlip mansion) - resolving Close paraphrasing concerns--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 02:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently we're not that close if you want to check all of those print sources, and invite others in to review. They're also going to find more 'issues' to be fixed with rewording and rearranging, even if you brought them in solely to check for paraphrasing. Honestly I'm tired of all this. GA reviews are not meant to be extensive endeavors, I know that from experience and the GA instructions and guidelines. If you'd like, sometime I can scan to you the pages from Cheever's book, and around October 18 when I'm back in the village, I can probably scan to you the rest of the print sources. Beyond that, I'm really finished here.-- ɱ    (talk)  03:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This has dragged out so much longer than I expected, too - even with what I thought were very easily solvable close paraphrasing issues.


 * I think we probably are close. It's just that there has been reluctance to admit and resolve the close phrasing issues, for the things I knew were issues, it's hard know how to feel comfortable that there aren't any other issues for the books. If I am being hypervigilant, which is the impression that I'm getting from you, their input will help square that away so that I better understand how far to go / not go.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 03:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it does not cross the line. it's ok. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I will pass the article.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 13:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Side items

 * It's not an issue for the GA review, but it's highly unusual for the article to be assessed by a contributor, particularly a primary contributor.
 * I know that nobody else is ever going to come along and assess it, so I make my best judgement in fairly assessing the article as it progresses in quality and quantity of content. I would also find it silly to nominate an unassessed or stub-class article for GA. I should also note that I haven't yet found any policy or guideline not permitting contributors or other certain users from assessing articles.-- ɱ    (talk)  22:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I cannot find where I've read it, but it's beginning to look as if there are different guidelines across projects. I posted a question here.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 00:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a comment, no change is needed, but it's my understanding that the "width" command doesn't make a difference in a gallery when the mode is "packed". (See Help:Gallery - Attributes and values)
 * You're probably right, the 'packed' thing I added later and didn't remove anything else. I'm not always 100% sure of how these templates work.-- ɱ    (talk)  22:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing this since it's an essentially closed discussion - and unrelated to the actual review.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 01:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

General comments
Great article!--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 17:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Added qualifiers above in bold about Rancho Palos Verdes, California.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 18:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wrote a lot of replies and then hit some sort of back button. I'm dismayed enough that I'll get back to this later.-- ɱ    (talk)  21:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, I hate it when that happens!--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 22:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am confused by some of the comments. Maybe it helps if I explain where I'm coming from, because I think there are varying intentions among contributors and reviewers. When I write, re-write or review an article, my mindset is: "what is the experience going to be for the average reader?" If there's a word that can be explained; images positioned so that are with relevant text and/or don't "bunch up" in areas; words that can be avoided that might "hang-up" a reader (e.g., host, contemporarily, eponymous - in this case), etc. - my goal is to remedy that. You're a smart person, I get that the things I'm noting aren't issues for you. I'm a little confused by the reluctance to make the minor tweaks / clarifications if it would help some readers, but they're not important enough to affect the article's GA review pass/fail status.

I think the biggest open issues are: 1) image placement (stab taken and comments are in the above image section) and 2) close paraphrasing. Long and short, I have a love-hate relationship with close paraphrasing, but it is an important issue, a key criteria for the GA review (1a), and one that has threatened Wikipedia's existence (2012/2013?).
 * For background only: "Close paraphrasing" haunts me. I find I'm doing it sometimes when I thought I reworded adequately... and I've sometimes rewritten something so it's not a copyvio/close paraphrasing issue and later find that during a final copy edit, I reworded sentences so that they became close paraphrasing issues. Arg! I rewrote the Close paraphrasing (workpage) article to be clearer a couple of years ago - to make the issue clearer for myself and others. Another arg!: I just did a review of one of my GA articles - Grandma Moses - to pick up my and other contributor's mistakes.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson   ( talk ) 17:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the two most important points, the images and close paraphrasing, I've closed the images item above, so we're good there.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * To answer your question from below (which I'm putting her so that this thread stays in synch), the only major open item now is close paraphrasing, which is key criteria for the GA review (1a).--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As said before, I can safely say that all of the text from before I started editing here has been altered for better wording and integration. And while I was writing the rest of it, I was careful to make sure that nothing was too close to the original source to count as 'close paraphrasing' by my standards. Do a couple spot checks if you'd like; I encourage it.-- ɱ    (talk)  05:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not my responsibility to resolve this issue. I've pointed out close paraphrasing issues from the web. I recommend that you review the dupe report, Copyright violations, and Close paraphrasing. Then, reevaluate to what extent you've met the Wikipedia guidelines re: copyright violation and close paraphrasing with information from books. In the meantime, I'll put this on hold pending the resolution of the issue. Please ping me when you're done. Thanks!--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 08:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the way this was worded, so I struck it out and am trying again.

As a reviewer, I'm comfortable making minor edits or edits where the fix is easier than a comment but for more substantive issues I'm not comfortable editing the article while I am the reviewer.

Sometimes when we've been close to the material it's hard to see when rewording is possible (i.e., it may seem like an example of "a limited number of ways to say the same thing"). In this case, though, I think that there are absolutely ways to reword this so that it changes the tenor of the author's writing style and the order in which the words are provided. I will take a stab at rewording one of the items found on the duplicated report to illustrate that point.

I think it's wise to keep the hold on the review; it doesn't matter if this gets resolved earlier and the hold provides a bit of a cushion so you do not feel pushed. It would be wise to look at the close paraphrasing example because it's nearly identical to this situation. The example might provide greater insight than my attempts to explain it. Also, if you'd like, you can grab another editor - like someone from the Guild of Copy Editors - and ask them to take a look at the prose for other items on the dupe report. Sometimes another perspective can clear up these issues quickly.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I've completed the comparison, analysis and wrote two potential suggestions for one of the items from the dupe report in the section.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson   ( talk ) 23:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Approach
A continuation of the previous discussion:
 * Hm, well that makes sense. I guess I just sort of liked when an editor ran through the Briarcliff Manor article, removing links to simple words and concepts that aren't very relevant to the text, and formalizing the wording, adding sophistication in multiple places. Still, I'll add the link. Unless you beat me to it, you seem to be a faster editor than me. Usually I'm a bit better, but I'm caught up in the new year with plenty to do IRL.-- ɱ    (talk)  00:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding approach, and your comment: "I guess I just sort of liked when an editor ran through the Briarcliff Manor article, removing links to simple words and concepts that aren't very relevant to the text, and formalizing the wording, adding sophistication in multiple places."
 * If you're talking about Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York/GA1 that began on July 18, 2014 by Peripitus, I'm seeing something very different than what you're describing in the initial note, review comments, and the article history. I am seeing that the comments are largely regarding clarification of material... and what should be added to the lede. And, I don't see the reviewer making any direct edits to the article from the date the review kicked off.


 * I don't find it a particularly "sophisticated" article, but it is a relatively "polished" article. It is written in a clear manner, it does a great job of providing links, and may benefit from a touch of copyediting. My approach during my professional career, regardless of the audience, was to keep it simple and clear. I think that article does that, too.


 * Is that what you're wanting, a "polished" article, or something else?--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 02:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has gone through a GA review, two FA reviews, and numerous reviews of the draft page that replaced its old form from early last year, I believe. I don't remember and can't easily find which person I'm talking about, but still it may not be "particlarly sophisticated" all around, as it's too long for any one editor to improve all of it like that. Regardless of all this, I'm fine with this article's current standing as well as adding in that wiktionary link.-- ɱ    (talk)  03:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool, and regarding pace, there's no hurry. Would you like me to place a 7 day hold?--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 03:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no ideas on improving the article; does it meet each of the GA criteria?-- ɱ    (talk)  03:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

See the General comments section.--<span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD;'> CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 05:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)