Talk:York/GA2

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

Overall, this article is in excellent shape! I can see that the comments from the previous GA review were taken well, and mostly used to improve the article substantially. So that makes the second review much, much easier! Here's how it stands up against the six GA criteria:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

The article also matches up well with, and is overall agreement with, the guidelines of WP:UKCITIES. One possible suggestion might be to alter the article's order of sections slightly. For example, with US and north american cities, we're finding that it's better to promote the 'culture' section in the order a bit, usually right after the 'economy' section. The sections on 'government', 'education' and 'transportation' are usually best if included near the end of the article, as their mostly more infrastructure-related. 'History', 'geography', 'demographics' ('demography'?), and 'economy' are some of the most important sections, and should always be first (we're mostly in agreement here, except for the government part).

I also noticed a few sentences were commas should be added to help improve readability. I fixed some of them, but it might help to have someone go through it again and sprinkle a few more about. This is fairly minor though, and not worthy of holding up GA.

Overall, the article is in great shape and can be promoted. Nice work! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)