Talk:Crocheron–McDowall House/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 21:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * To be determined after all the other editing below is taken care of.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * To be determined after all the other editing below is taken care of.

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * c. (OR):
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * The biggest issue here is plagiarism. Much of it is word-for-word from the National Register Listing nomination form. I stopped reviewing after the History section, because the last two entire paragraphs of the History section are almost entirely lifted, with slight rewording, from the NRHP source. You know ... take a hunk of text and flip around the words/phrases in the sentence, etc. In addition, it flips back and forth on dates between the appropriate American MDY, and the European style of DMY. So please note, that because of the plagiarism issue, I did not go on reading through the sections on Historical designations and Architecture.
 * If you have not seen the NRHP source, please see https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/Details/2078003357 To see the entire nomination form click on Files, then click on National Register Nomination File.  That will bring up the PDF  of the 1977-78 nomination form.
 * There is much work to do here to get the known issues corrected, and for any editor to give the remaining sections the same editorial scrutiny. It is do-able, but it will take work to get there. Good luck.  — Maile  (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * The biggest issue here is plagiarism. Much of it is word-for-word from the National Register Listing nomination form. I stopped reviewing after the History section, because the last two entire paragraphs of the History section are almost entirely lifted, with slight rewording, from the NRHP source. You know ... take a hunk of text and flip around the words/phrases in the sentence, etc. In addition, it flips back and forth on dates between the appropriate American MDY, and the European style of DMY. So please note, that because of the plagiarism issue, I did not go on reading through the sections on Historical designations and Architecture.
 * If you have not seen the NRHP source, please see https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/Details/2078003357 To see the entire nomination form click on Files, then click on National Register Nomination File.  That will bring up the PDF  of the 1977-78 nomination form.
 * There is much work to do here to get the known issues corrected, and for any editor to give the remaining sections the same editorial scrutiny. It is do-able, but it will take work to get there. Good luck.  — Maile  (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * The biggest issue here is plagiarism. Much of it is word-for-word from the National Register Listing nomination form. I stopped reviewing after the History section, because the last two entire paragraphs of the History section are almost entirely lifted, with slight rewording, from the NRHP source. You know ... take a hunk of text and flip around the words/phrases in the sentence, etc. In addition, it flips back and forth on dates between the appropriate American MDY, and the European style of DMY. So please note, that because of the plagiarism issue, I did not go on reading through the sections on Historical designations and Architecture.
 * If you have not seen the NRHP source, please see https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/Details/2078003357 To see the entire nomination form click on Files, then click on National Register Nomination File.  That will bring up the PDF  of the 1977-78 nomination form.
 * There is much work to do here to get the known issues corrected, and for any editor to give the remaining sections the same editorial scrutiny. It is do-able, but it will take work to get there. Good luck.  — Maile  (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass/fail:
 * The biggest issue here is plagiarism. Much of it is word-for-word from the National Register Listing nomination form. I stopped reviewing after the History section, because the last two entire paragraphs of the History section are almost entirely lifted, with slight rewording, from the NRHP source. You know ... take a hunk of text and flip around the words/phrases in the sentence, etc. In addition, it flips back and forth on dates between the appropriate American MDY, and the European style of DMY. So please note, that because of the plagiarism issue, I did not go on reading through the sections on Historical designations and Architecture.
 * If you have not seen the NRHP source, please see https://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/Details/2078003357 To see the entire nomination form click on Files, then click on National Register Nomination File.  That will bring up the PDF  of the 1977-78 nomination form.
 * There is much work to do here to get the known issues corrected, and for any editor to give the remaining sections the same editorial scrutiny. It is do-able, but it will take work to get there. Good luck.  — Maile  (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is much work to do here to get the known issues corrected, and for any editor to give the remaining sections the same editorial scrutiny. It is do-able, but it will take work to get there. Good luck.  — Maile  (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)