Talk:Cleveland Pools/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'm aware that this article had a review that was started but never finished. I'll go through the GA criteria one by one and then give a few suggestions, just for fun, that won't affect GA status. Icebob99 (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes the immediate failure criteria. No copyvios, no cleanup tags or banners, and no edit warring.

Going on to the full review: Prose is clear and concise, with the meaning of each sentence apparent. Grammar is good, I caught a small typo that I fixed, so the article passes (1a). Lead meets MoS requirements, layout checks out, no peacock words or other words to watch. No fiction or list incorporation to worry about, so (1b) is met. List of references present, so it meets (2a). All sources look reliable with the stats cited inline, no BLP or controversial material, meets (2b). To be continued. Icebob99 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's cited, no original research found, meets (2c). No copyvios as mentioned above, so the article meets (2d). The article covers everything I found in a Google search, and it stays nice and focused on everything about Cleveland Pools, so it meets both (3a) and (3b). 7.5kB readable prose has enough content to satisfy the reader. Neutrality looks good, thus (4) is met. Stability as mentioned above is good, so (5) is met. Images captions make sense, and the images themselves are licensed appropriately, so the article meets (6).

A few suggestions just for fun (completely optional):

First sentence, perhaps change Cleveland Pools in Hampton Row to Cleveland Pools, located in Hampton Row
End of first sentence, perhaps remove commas around "to designs by John Pinch the elder". Commas are very personal things, but I found it a little confusing at first. I'd also change the preposition "to" to "for".
The sentence in the second paragraph of the lead reading "it was closed in 1984" should read "the pool was closed in 1984" since the last singular pronoun was "the local corporation".
Perhaps add a comma after "in 2005" and before "which is expected to reopen in 2018", per comma use as I learned it. Again, commas are punctilious things.
Perhaps merge the first and second sentences in the third paragraph of the lead.
First sentence of history section: same as bullet 2.
In the fourth paragraph of the history section, perhaps expand on why the pool was threatened with demolition.
What do II and II* mean? You may want to include some explanation on that.

Anyhow, those are enough suggestions, the article obviously passes, congratulations to the nominator! Icebob99 (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]