Talk:McDonald Ranch House/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments
Interesting choice for an article! It looks generally very good, and I have the following comments:
 * The lead should be expanded to note the pre and post-nuclear test histories of the house
 * Increased the size of the lead. When I put together a major article, I normally create a spin-off article or two. Originally this one was just a copy of the WSMR brochure. It has been expanded somewhat, and now has a spin-off article of its own. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can more be said about the history of the occupation/purpose of the house before it was taken over by the army? (eg, was it the only house on the ranch)
 * No, I cannot find anything more on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "There is a display on the Schmidt family in the house during each open house" - I'd suggest moving this to the end of the article and add a bit of material explaining that it's generally not open to the public
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we know why the house was selected to be used to assemble the atomic bomb? It seems a surprising choice for such a critical (and expensive) test - I would have expected a purpose-built facility of some kind.
 * For a one-off? Unlikely. But I cannot find anything. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest adding some material noting the house's historic place listing at the end of the article (when did this occur, and what does it involve?)
 * Done. Also added more material about the restoration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That all looks good. I'm pleased to pass this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citations to reliable sources:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: