Talk:Cunard Building/GA1

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment No problems found checking against quick fail criteria. On to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Ref #1 and #2 don't work, I think the web site is down will check tomorrow. This site is still down and there are no cached copies on the Internet Archive. This is a big problem as there are a lot of statements referenced by these two urls at {http://www.cunardbuilding.com} If replacements cannot be found, I will have to fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC) OK, I have checked again and the site is working, as you say it perhaps doesn't like heavy traffic. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * appear to be reliable
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * 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, 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:
 * Ok, I will check back tomorrow to check out the web site that appears to be currently down. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still down. Do you have other sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 17 July 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:
 * Ok, I will check back tomorrow to check out the web site that appears to be currently down. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still down. Do you have other sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Ok, I will check back tomorrow to check out the web site that appears to be currently down. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still down. Do you have other sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok I have accessed the site and it checks out. OK. I am happy to confirm that this is worthy of Good Article status. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)