Talk:Literary Hall/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 15:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

: Comments below.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Issues

 * It is unecessary to put its like this "kms" or "lbs" because "km" or "lb" is enough.
 * Upon my review of the article, I wasn't able to find instances where this occurred. In the "Geography and setting" section, I used the standard acre, which is converted in the convert template to ha; and I used the standard feet which was converted in the convert template to m. Please let me know if I missed something. -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * A few duplicate links need to be fixed
 * Using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool which I just discovered day, go figure, I was able to remove all the duplicate links. Thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "of the PDF file" is an unecessary suffix.
 * I've included "of the PDF file" to provide the readers an easier way to find the pages with the cited information. National Register of Historic Places nomination forms are divided into sections and their pages are not numbered the way a book would be. To allow the reader to find the content more easily, "of the PDF file" tells the reader to check that page of the PDF file itself versus the section, page number. Let me know if this is a deal breaker; and thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't have to "pictured" at the end
 * I've removed (pictured) from the end of the caption. Thanks for the catch! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is unecessary to citations like this "The sun is red.[1] The sun is hot.[1]"
 * I've removed the unnecessary inline citations. Please take another scan through and let me know if I missed anything. -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Four citations for one point seems excessive.
 * I've removed the fourth citations where existing. There are no more than three citations per point, when needed. Let me know if I missed any and thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tomandjerry211 (alt) and Tomandjerry211, thank you for taking the time to engage in another review. Your assisting in improving this article has been greatly appreciated. Please take another look and let me know if there are any outstanding issues or if you have any additional questions or concerns. Thanks again! -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Passing, well done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tomandjerry211 (alt) and Tomandjerry211, thank you again for your thoughtful review! -- West Virginian   (talk)  20:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)