Talk:Cranham/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is how the article in its present state matches up to the six good article criteria.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is very good and easy to read. The article is in compliance with Wikipedia]s manual of style as well as the guidelines for UK cities. I am a bit concerned about the placement of the table to the right of text in the demography section; users with small monitors might have some awkwardly placed text. It might be better to place this at the bottom of the section, after the text.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is adequately cited, and all citations appear to be reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is mostly complete and contains everything that I would expect an article about a small, suburban bedroom community to contain. The last three sections are very short, however. While I can't think of too much more to be written about transportation, the economy and culture sections are mostly just listing a couple of things in the community. Seems like this could be expanded. Can someone take a photo of some of the shops in the town? Are there any annual cultural events that take place?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article adheres to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable and has no evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations. Most recent editing is by MRSC.
 * 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):
 * All images that are currently used in the article are tagged with copyright tags and captioned appropriately. An image of the primary business district/shops could help the article a lot, though (see above).
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article is very close to GA at the moment and can be promoted pending a few minor adjustments. I will leave this on hold at WP:GAN until 3/8/2010 so that these issues can be dealt with. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to review. I will deal with these points now. MRSC (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Culture: ✅ I've expanded this to detail the activities of the two community associations, one of which appears to be very active.
 * Economy: ✅ I've included hospitality. Very hard to expand as this is too small a neighbourhood to have data produced for it alone, most sources conflate it with neighbouring Upminster.
 * Photo: I was hoping to get a suitably licensed image from geograph or flickr, but unfortunately it is all churches and Underground trains. I'm sure this is because the shop parades are late 50s/early 60s and not very photogenic. It might be some time until a suitably sunny day coincides with my ability to visit this part of the world. I've since added two photos of landmarks. ✅ photo of shops now added. MRSC (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The reviewer appears to have disappeared. Since you've fixed everything and I don't see any other issues, I am passing this article as a GA. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 05:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)