Talk:Joppenbergh Mountain/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it as a valuable addition to the Rosendale collection. No disamb. or invalid external links.
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Disamb. links and external links check out.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "when a new slope was built,"->"when a new slope was built on the mountain,"
 * Change "Central Hudson"->"Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp."
 * "a skiing competition was held in January 1966."->"a ski jumping competition was held in January 1966."
 * Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Footnote 30 needs a better citation format. How about, "New York Public Service Commission, Opinion No. 95-6, "Opinion and Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need" (PDF), CASE 91-E-0529, 1995-05-23. pp. 1–2, 17–18. Retrieved 2011-04-18." - include the Opinion number and the case number.
 * Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Please state whether the sale to the OSI was consumated or is awaiting closing. Explain what "open space" conditions OSI would add to the deed when it sells the mountain back to the village.
 * The article is not clear whether the former mayor's parking lot is a part of the OSI land purchase or whether having the OSI land, future use of the former mayor's parking lot becomes unnecessary.
 * The sources don't say whether the deal is still being worked out, or if it is already over, and the sources also don't connect the former mayor's land with the current property. I'm hoping some future source clears this up, because I'm also confused about this. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No edit wars.
 * 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):
 * Thank you for contributing the kiln photo. Copyright issues on all images check out.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Thank you for contributing the kiln photo. Copyright issues on all images check out.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on another Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)