Talk:Central Troy Historic District/GA1

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

I am reviewing this article for GA and find that it an interesting and informative article that generally fulfills the requirements. I have two concerns.
 * The prose in "Postwar prosperity". Too many short, stubby paragraphs.
 * ✅ I combined several of them. Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LAYOUT, I think there are too many images and they overwhelm the article. In fact, they overwhelm themselves, as it becomes difficult to focus on them, there are so many. You could either cull the selections for the most interesting/informative. Or use a gallery. Also, their placement is problematic and somehow not attractive.

Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The images illustrate adjacent text in which the buildings in question are mentioned. I don't like using galleries because images in an article should either illustrate the article or not be in it at all. Images help break up text flow so you can keep reading. I don't think this is out of line with "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon further reflection, I hadn't originally intended for there to be so many images at the end. Perhaps for the time being, I can take them out (save the guy at the street festival). Maybe a good long-term compromise with your gallery suggestion would be to tableize the "Significant contributing properties" section, using the color schemes we use in all our NRHP list articles. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ I took out some of the images near the end of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Much better. Very nice visually. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR):  No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Neutral
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.: Stable
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass
 * I can see that an extraordinary amount of work has gone into this in depth treatment of this historical district in Troy. Quite beyond a GA. Congradulations! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Pass
 * I can see that an extraordinary amount of work has gone into this in depth treatment of this historical district in Troy. Quite beyond a GA. Congradulations! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that an extraordinary amount of work has gone into this in depth treatment of this historical district in Troy. Quite beyond a GA. Congradulations! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that an extraordinary amount of work has gone into this in depth treatment of this historical district in Troy. Quite beyond a GA. Congradulations! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)