Talk:My Old Kentucky Home State Park/GA1

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is good. The only issue is the lead section, which is too short and doesn't provide a good summary of the article. If the lead can be improved to at least two paragraphs, summarizing things better, then I think the article would meet GA standards. See WP:LEAD.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Citations used are reliable and information is verifiable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article seems to cover the major topics of the history and architecture of the house well.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is written in a neutral tone. No WP:NPOV violations.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No stability issues, WP:3RR violations, or edit-warring are evident.
 * 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):
 * All images are free and tagged appropriately. Captions are short, succinct and descriptive.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The only real issue here is that the lead section is too short. Once that is fixed the article should meet Good Article standards. I'll place this on hold until 2/26/2010 so that this can be addressed. WTF? (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead looks good now. The article meets the GA criteria. WTF? (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)