Talk:Exploratorium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 00:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

After having a look through the article, I have decided that the best course of action to take here is to quick-fail the article. The article fails to meet the following GA criteria, 1a, 2a, 3b and 4.
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The first three paragraphs of "Early history" appear to be unsourced. I suppose the citation is located at the end of the fourth paragraph -- a very rough guideline is that each paragraph must have at least one citation.
 * The second paragraph of "Arts" is unsourced.
 * "Hours and access" is unsourced.
 * The last paragraph of "Informal leanring programs" is unsourced.
 * The last paragraph of "Related points of interest" is unsourced.
 * There appears to be a conflict of interest between the nominator and the article. There article gives undue weight to several aspects, including the Seaglass Restaurant, the Fisher Bay Observatory Gallery, and the mention of parking lots. It reads like a WP:PROMOTION.
 * I see several instances of paraphrasing and copy right violations, for example:
 * "a circular opening in the ceiling that allows the entire gallery to be used as a timepiece, tracking seasons, solstices, and the sun’s movement" vs "a circular opening in the ceiling that turns the entire gallery into a timepiece. Markings show seasons and solstices, and track the sun's position across the sky".
 * "Each year, the museum invites ten to twenty artists to participate in residencies ranging from two weeks to two years." vs "Each year, the museum invites ten to twenty artists to participate in residencies ranging from two weeks to two years." --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hours and access" is unsourced.
 * The last paragraph of "Informal leanring programs" is unsourced.
 * The last paragraph of "Related points of interest" is unsourced.
 * There appears to be a conflict of interest between the nominator and the article. There article gives undue weight to several aspects, including the Seaglass Restaurant, the Fisher Bay Observatory Gallery, and the mention of parking lots. It reads like a WP:PROMOTION.
 * I see several instances of paraphrasing and copy right violations, for example:
 * "a circular opening in the ceiling that allows the entire gallery to be used as a timepiece, tracking seasons, solstices, and the sun’s movement" vs "a circular opening in the ceiling that turns the entire gallery into a timepiece. Markings show seasons and solstices, and track the sun's position across the sky".
 * "Each year, the museum invites ten to twenty artists to participate in residencies ranging from two weeks to two years." vs "Each year, the museum invites ten to twenty artists to participate in residencies ranging from two weeks to two years." --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)