Talk:Dowse Sod House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be using WP:IAR on one aspect of the rules here: Technically, there might be a little original research here, but it's of the "describe how sources were evaluated in footnotes" sort, which I think is fully justified in a case where there's a lot of ambiguity in the sources. If there's any sources that back your arguments, mentioning them would strengthen this aspect, and really help you out if you intend to go for featured article.

So, I'm giving this a pass on well-referenced. In fact, it uses extra references and checks to make sure that it's as accurate as possible. Other than those couple footnotes, everything is fine on that point.

So.

It's comprehensive, seems to us all relevant sources, and provides loads of extremely interesting background.

I think this is an excellent article, and think it deserves to be GA.

The only real issue that could be improved is that the historical significance of the house isn't fully described. I mean, a homestead sod house is almost certainly significant, but it'd be good to summarise the arguments that got it onto the National Register of Historic Places, because, you know, why not?

✓ Pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the GA review. I appreciate your efforts. For what it's worth, I'm plannning to try to do some GA reviews myself once I've been through the process a time or two more with articles of my own—I want to get a feel for how various reviewers handle it before I try it.

I was a little worried about the OR thing myself, especially the date on the tornado. Note that I used "early 1940s" in the article, which is consistent with sources. I thought it important to put a footnote in, lest someone notice the (possible incorrect) 1941 date in some sources and insert that, thinking that they're being more precise: the footnote is there to warn editors about that.

I'll take your suggestion and move some of the statements regarding the historic significance of the house to the lead. I've got them in the very last paragraph, but it'd probably be good to put them in a more conspicuous position as well.

Thanks again for your time and effort on this. -- Ammodramus (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. If in doubt, what you could do is just put the facts forwards without drawing conclusions, which is ample for what the text cites. You can, for example, cite the tree being destroyed by tornado, and just leave the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)