Talk:The Mansion of Happiness/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Congratulations on the work completed so far. It is a significant improvement from the last major upgrade. There are a few concerns, however, I have in regards to GA status. \ / (⁂) 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead reads a little disjointed, particularly the first sentence. The description of Abbott so early in the introduction is a little distracting - perhaps move into a separate paragraph? Try expanding the lead, and separate the early part of the article under suitable headings. Try WP:LEAD if you are having trouble.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * As mentioned above, the article tends to lose its focus, especially in the lead.
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * An alternative caption might be the go, something that describes what it is, (game board, etc). Another image would be nice, but not paramount.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The prose needs significant improvement in order to meet the 1a requirement. Try contacting a Copyeditor at a relevant WP:TOYS, or at WP:GoCE. A copyedit will not only improve the prose, but will tend to get the article a little more 'focused'. You are not far away from GA quality, keep putting in effort at it won't be far away. :)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The prose needs significant improvement in order to meet the 1a requirement. Try contacting a Copyeditor at a relevant WP:TOYS, or at WP:GoCE. A copyedit will not only improve the prose, but will tend to get the article a little more 'focused'. You are not far away from GA quality, keep putting in effort at it won't be far away. :)

I think it is time for a reassessment.

Glubbdrubb (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)