Talk:Icelandic Phallological Museum/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this article. However the dead link needs to be fixed. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Link fixed. oyasumi (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * "and an unfortunate stray polar bear" - "unfortunate" - not encyclopedic wording
 * Removed unfortunate. oyasumi (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "penis he owned as a child" - had owned since childhood, or had owned as a child?
 * I think had owned as a child is right here, but I'm not sure. oyasumi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He put the museum up for sale in 2003, and offered it to the city of Reykjavík as a gift" - seem contradictory
 * He did both, nobody ever bought it and the city never accepted the gift. It was handed to his son in 2012. oyasumi (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "just the front tip" - all quotes need an immediate citation


 * Is there a fee to tour the museum?
 * But wouldn't that be against WP:NOPRICES? oyasumi (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * You don't have to give the price. It can say "for a fee" or whatever.
 * Yes, there's a fee. 1000 Icelandic króna. I'm not sure where to put this in the article, though. oyasumi (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article, nicely presented!

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Provides references to all sources:
 * B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * B. Remains focused:
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doesn't matter about the fee. It's an interesting article, well done, and deserves to be a GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doesn't matter about the fee. It's an interesting article, well done, and deserves to be a GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Doesn't matter about the fee. It's an interesting article, well done, and deserves to be a GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter about the fee. It's an interesting article, well done, and deserves to be a GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter about the fee. It's an interesting article, well done, and deserves to be a GA. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)