Talk:Burnham Pavilions

GA Review
This isn't a proper review - but were I to take this up I'd have to say that I'd be doubtful of passing it because it is about an ongoing project, so the stability of the article is doubtful. Alan16 (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will look a few things up. It should be completed now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'd seek another reviewer though - I'm not Mr. Popular at the moment when it comes to GA reviews. Alan16 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review 2

 * This review is transcluded from Talk:Pavilion projects/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I added a citation to the lead.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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 map looks good.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This a definitely great article. Please I'd like this to reach FA soon. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 23:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The map looks good.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This a definitely great article. Please I'd like this to reach FA soon. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 23:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Video here if anyone wants to add it
i suggest using firefogg to convert :) Victor Grigas (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)