Talk:Dolphinarium/GA1

GA Reassessment
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The Lead does not adequately summarise the whole article.  Please read WP:LEAD for guidelines. I would also like you to look at the WP:External links and see if they are all necessary and add encyclopaedic content.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref #3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13 are dead links. Compuserve and geocities are not WP:RS
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * May need some updating.
 * 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:
 * Just the concerns noted above to be addressed, on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see some work is being done - are you ready for me to have another look? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been done about the lead - it should be at least 3 paras for an article like this and summarise the whole article. Still has one dead link, which is geocities and not RS anyway. I moved the book into further reading and formatted the citation.  I will take a look tomorrow and make a decision then. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. I fixed the last remaining dead link and expanded the lead per above. Note that MOS indicates that the appropriate length of the lead is 2-3 paragraphs for articles of this size. Elekhh (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I am happy to confirm that this article is worthy of GA status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been done about the lead - it should be at least 3 paras for an article like this and summarise the whole article. Still has one dead link, which is geocities and not RS anyway. I moved the book into further reading and formatted the citation.  I will take a look tomorrow and make a decision then. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. I fixed the last remaining dead link and expanded the lead per above. Note that MOS indicates that the appropriate length of the lead is 2-3 paragraphs for articles of this size. Elekhh (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I am happy to confirm that this article is worthy of GA status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)