Talk:Cranham/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how the article in its present state matches up to the six good article criteria.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is very good and easy to read. The article is in compliance with Wikipedia]s manual of style as well as the guidelines for UK cities. I am a bit concerned about the placement of the table to the right of text in the demography section; users with small monitors might have some awkwardly placed text. It might be better to place this at the bottom of the section, after the text.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The article is adequately cited, and all citations appear to be reliable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article is mostly complete and contains everything that I would expect an article about a small, suburban bedroom community to contain. The last three sections are very short, however. While I can't think of too much more to be written about transportation, the economy and culture sections are mostly just listing a couple of things in the community. Seems like this could be expanded. Can someone take a photo of some of the shops in the town? Are there any annual cultural events that take place?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article adheres to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV guidelines.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article is stable and has no evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations. Most recent editing is by MRSC.
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 that are currently used in the article are tagged with copyright tags and captioned appropriately. An image of the primary business district/shops could help the article a lot, though (see above).
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article is very close to GA at the moment and can be promoted pending a few minor adjustments. I will leave this on hold at WP:GAN until 3/8/2010 so that these issues can be dealt with. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. I will deal with these points now. MRSC (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Culture: Y I've expanded this to detail the activities of the two community associations, one of which appears to be very active.
Economy: Y I've included hospitality. Very hard to expand as this is too small a neighbourhood to have data produced for it alone, most sources conflate it with neighbouring Upminster.
Photo: I was hoping to get a suitably licensed image from geograph or flickr, but unfortunately it is all churches and Underground trains. I'm sure this is because the shop parades are late 50s/early 60s and not very photogenic. It might be some time until a suitably sunny day coincides with my ability to visit this part of the world. I've since added two photos of landmarks. Y photo of shops now added. MRSC (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer appears to have disappeared. Since you've fixed everything and I don't see any other issues, I am passing this article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]