Talk:Getty Villa/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD
 * Poor prose, needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Most of the material in the article is referenced by a primary source, the museum's own website. We need more from independent sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * We could do with a more detailed description of the antiquities, with information on their original sites. Most of teh material appears to be gleaned from a couple of websites.
 * The whole Admission section is unnecessary, and the information will rapidly become out of date.
 * Information has remained stable for years. Due to concerns about parking and traffic, the Getty Villa has an unusual reservation system that is worth coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * It verges on a promotional tour guide, not an encyclopaedic article.
 * 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:
 * The article needs a fair bit of work to bring it up to GA status. As the nominator is indefinitely blocked, I shall not be listing it at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The article needs a fair bit of work to bring it up to GA status. As the nominator is indefinitely blocked, I shall not be listing it at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)