Talk:Central Waterfront, Seattle/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

First off, the title of the page needs to be changed - try moving the article to something like Seattle Central Waterfront or Central Waterfront (Seattle).
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * This article needs a lot of work put into the prose. The lead is extremely difficult to read, have a look at WP:LEAD. In fact, the prose is general is just poor. Improve it if you can, and try contacting an experienced copyeditor from a local WikiProject.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article is very, very long. While not necessarily a bad thing, there are several splits that could come from this article. Try to decide on the context of the article, and anything that becomes too in-depth needs to be either removed or split into another article.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * There are parts were it gets a bit advertisment-ish, but nothing that wouldn't be changed with a copyedit.
 * 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):
 * Looks good as far as I can tell.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few too many issues with the article at present for me to put on hold. Contact WP:SEA, and get a group of editors working on this article and renominate in a few weeks. I hope to see this article again soon. :) \ / (⁂) 07:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just a few too many issues with the article at present for me to put on hold. Contact WP:SEA, and get a group of editors working on this article and renominate in a few weeks. I hope to see this article again soon. :) \ / (⁂) 07:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)