Talk:Cornell Botanic Gardens/GA4

The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

The current extent section of this article contains a long list of items, some of which have citations, some don't. Citations is needed for all items in the list. The alternative is to have one citation/source for all items in the list if such a source is available. Currently, the article fails criterion 2b.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, WP:WIAGA criterion 2b says "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". None of those items would seem to include a list of collections in a botanical gardens, unless you think this article falls in the science category that 2b later talks about.  In any case, footnote 14 is intended to cover the entries in the "F.R. Newman Arboretum" subsection, footnote 26 the entries in the "Botanical gardens" section, and footnote 32 the entries in the "Nature areas" subsection.  Do you have specific concerns about any of these?  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not made clear in the article that the 3 footnotes you mentioned (kinda) cover the entries, especially when there are other citations in the list. Also, each of those footnotes leads to a page that requires some further navigation in order to find the specific webpage that supports the corresponding item in the list and details regarding that item. These 2 issues make verification difficult. It's better to cite the specific webpage for each of the items and its details. Also the lists contains inconsistencies. For example why is the area of some of the locations mentioned, but others? For example, Turkey Hill Road Meadow has an area of 27.83 acres, according this source, but this is not mentioned.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:WGN says that content other than those 5 types of statements listed in the criteria should "still be supported by general references", something this article does not have.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went ahead and added the general references. I think that solves the sourcing issue I brought up. The inconsistencies I described likely don't violate any GA criteria, although they might be a concern if you want this article to become a FAC. I believe this article is in good shape now. I'll willing to close this reassessment if you don't have anything to add.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)
 * If it's okay with you, it's okay with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Keep.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)