Talk:Delta County Courthouse

Delta County Courthouse has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 6, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Delta County Courthouse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

At first glance, this looks like a solid article. Some of the sources are weakish but their claims are uncontroversial. My only small concerns are below. I've also done some minor copyediting as I went. Please feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and double-check that I haven't accidentally introduced any errors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" much notice was paid to northeastern portion of the state" -- paid by who? Delegates? Newspapers?

Clarified.

The given source lists the architect as "Hook Smith" rather than "Hoke" -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was an issue I had. Depending on the source I looked at, the architect's name varied between Hoke and Hook. I changed it to Hook to match the source, but if anyone has anything to say about it, I'm open to comments. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 04:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick with Hook for now, since that's the spelling in that specific citation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Minor prose concerns noted above.~~ Spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is brief, but very little is written on this topic. Main aspects appear to be covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass.