Talk:Director Park/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Ben Mac Dui 11:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all far away from a pass. The only immediate comments I have are that there should be something in the lead about the history, which dominates the article but is essentially absent here and that "curbless" is an unlikely red link. Further detailed checks to follow soon. Ben Mac Dui 11:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
Pass save for lead. Dabs and links check out OK
Now fixed
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
Pass
It is broad in its coverage.
Pass - only addition I can think of is that a map showing the location in Portland would be helpful, but I can't see any obvious sign of that option being available elsewhere.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Pass
It is stable.
Pass
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
Pass
Overall:
Pending

Comments

(Dunno where GA comments are usually left). The lede contains a summary of the history- the 2009 date is in the first paragraph (I just added the cost), and the "Continuous park blocks" is in the second paragraph. In my mind the rest is only a little bit above run-of-the-mill history of a place; do you have feedback on what appears to be missing from the lede? tedder (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on achieving this pass. Protocol suggests that I should ask you to volunteer to review another GAN, although in all candour your remarks above suggest you may need a little more experience of nominations first. Perhaps one of your collaborators would consider this. Regards, Ben Mac Dui 08:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I fully acknowledge that I'm a terrible person to handle a GA review. Hopefully one of the capable WikiProject Oregon folks will do so. tedder (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.