Talk:Cunard Building/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

No problems found checking against quick fail criteria. On to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Ref #1 and #2 don't work, I think the web site is down will check tomorrow. This site is still down and there are no cached copies on the Internet Archive. This is a big problem as there are a lot of statements referenced by these two urls at {http://www.cunardbuilding.com} If replacements cannot be found, I will have to fail. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC) OK, I have checked again and the site is working, as you say it perhaps doesn't like heavy traffic. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • appear to be reliable

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Ok, I will check back tomorrow to check out the web site that appears to be currently down. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Still down. Do you have other sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Ok I have accessed the site and it checks out. OK. I am happy to confirm that this is worthy of Good Article status. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)