Talk:History of Randolph, Tennessee/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Would it be possible to not open the article with a one-sentence paragraph?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, 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:
 * I pretty much think you got it all. I dwelled for a long time to try to identify anything that could be added between 1865 and 2008, but I cannot think of anything that would be suitable. Fact is, this is just a bunch of fields with a few scattered houses after the Civil War. Otherwise, it meets all the GA criteria. Congratulations!
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I pretty much think you got it all. I dwelled for a long time to try to identify anything that could be added between 1865 and 2008, but I cannot think of anything that would be suitable. Fact is, this is just a bunch of fields with a few scattered houses after the Civil War. Otherwise, it meets all the GA criteria. Congratulations!
 * I pretty much think you got it all. I dwelled for a long time to try to identify anything that could be added between 1865 and 2008, but I cannot think of anything that would be suitable. Fact is, this is just a bunch of fields with a few scattered houses after the Civil War. Otherwise, it meets all the GA criteria. Congratulations!

Comments
Thank you very much for the review of this article. I have fixed the single sentence at the beginning by combining it with the following paragraph. Was that the reason why the prose (section 1a) is not checked as "pass"? If I have missed any suggested improvements with the prose, please let me know, it would be nice for the article to pass all points. I am glad that I could apply your previous advice from the recent review to the article and I appreciate your recommendations for further reading, especially the good writing guide. I have learned a lot and I am going to learn form that further.

Let me leave some unencyclopedic remarks here, if you allow. Scattered houses and many fields, that is Randolph for the last 150 years or so, and probably the most amazing view of the big ol' River I have ever seen. I was there a few times to make photos and figure out where the Civil War powder magazine is. It is actually pretty hidden in the woods and on private property, there is not even a sign. So I talked to a few residents to inquire the whereabouts and of course to the owner, to acquire permission to walk on his land and make photos. The community is small, tight-knit and very clean, not the usual litter at the roadside you find everwhere else. The people are very friendly and helpful. Yes, since the town was burt down in the Civil War the place is pretty quiet, most people left. A few stayed and descendents of those still live there.

Thank you again for your advice and congratulations for your 50th DYK. doxTxob \ talk 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ??? was about the single sentence. It was not worth the trouble of placing on hold, since you have previously shown yourself as a reliable nominator. I also took a look at the main Randolph article, and it is looking a lot better after some more content has been added, and the history somewhat reduced. Keep up the good work :) Arsenikk (talk)  22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)