Talk:Hartford City Courthouse Square Historic District/GA1

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

Reviewer: DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This appears to be a thoroughly well-developed article and my initial impression is that it is well overdue for Good Article status.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * (a) The article is reasonably well written, and makes appropriate use of structure, hatnotes and wikilinks to provide context. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (b) The article complies with the MOS for lead sections. (Comment: The current lead section passes the GA criteria but could be improved by (1) explaining what the District is (an area of land?  a collection of buildings?) and (2) explaining the scale of the area, possibly by incorporating the acreage information from the infobox.) [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (b) The article complies with the MOS for layout. (Comment: Personally I prefer to see References appear above Notes but the MOS informs me there is no consensus for this preference.) [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (b) The article complies with the MOS for word choice. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (b) The MOS for fiction is not applicable to this article. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (b) The article complies with the MOS for embedded lists. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * (a) The article complies with our policies on formatting references and uses citation templates when appropriate. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (b) The article provides inline citations against all outstanding statements, statements likely to be challenged, and direct quotes, and as far as I am able to determine the cited sources support the article content. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (c) There is no evidence of original research in the article. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * (a) The article covers all the areas of content I would expect to find in an article of this sort. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (b) The article does not provide an unnecsesary level of detail. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article appears to be neutral in tone and present all notable viewpoints without bias. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * As of this writing the article appears to be stable and is not the subject of substantial unresolved disputes. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * 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):
 * (a & b) All images used in the article now have appropriate licensing information and descriptive text. [[Image:Green tick.svg|16px]]
 * (a & b) I'd personally like to see alt text for all images (currently none have alt text) but upon further reading it appears this is specifically not a requirement for Good Article status. [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|16px]] (Not required for GA status.)
 * 1) Overall: This is a thorough, well referenced and well illustrated article, and I am passing it as a Good Article. Issues to concentrate on for future improvement may include a lead section that more extensively covers the basic geometry of the area (its size, boundaries, etc), and the provision of alt text for the article's many images. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: