Talk:Minnehaha Park (Minneapolis)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Coretheapple (talk · contribs) 14:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 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:
 * This is a well-written and very comprehensive article, and despite my strenuous efforts to find anything substantially wrong with it, I really couldn't. My only nitpicky point is that you convert the bare URLs into properly formulated references. That's really it. Nice job. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * This is a well-written and very comprehensive article, and despite my strenuous efforts to find anything substantially wrong with it, I really couldn't. My only nitpicky point is that you convert the bare URLs into properly formulated references. That's really it. Nice job. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a well-written and very comprehensive article, and despite my strenuous efforts to find anything substantially wrong with it, I really couldn't. My only nitpicky point is that you convert the bare URLs into properly formulated references. That's really it. Nice job. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a well-written and very comprehensive article, and despite my strenuous efforts to find anything substantially wrong with it, I really couldn't. My only nitpicky point is that you convert the bare URLs into properly formulated references. That's really it. Nice job. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Opps - those were present when I began to work on the article and I failed to notice them. I'll take care of them ASAP.  Thanks for the review.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)