Talk:Park Hall, Shetland/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Review undertaken on this version of the article

This is nowhere near GA in its current state for the clearly obvious reasons noted above. I would argue it may not even be notable enough to warrant an article of its own, as notability has not even been established or justified. Listed status does not mean a building automatically qualifies to have an article.


 * Thanks for this review. This has helped me understand what it will take to make a good article. This article will meet the standards in the future. JohnSmith678 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at the broadness of articles that are currently being passed as GA and/or look at GA-rated articles within the wikiprojects I assigned this article to, to understand what is required of a GA. This is barely started and has vast amounts of missing information, not to mention minimum expectations people expect on a GA article (that being, a suitable infobox and lead to introduce all areas); alot of expansion is still required. I'd advise submitting to a peer review when you have added significantly more content prior to listing for GA, so as to not clutter the GA nominees page before it's ready. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)