Talk:Elmwood (Cambridge, Massachusetts)

Elmwood (Cambridge, Massachusetts) has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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
November 6, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

United States: Massachusetts 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.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elmwood (Cambridge, Massachusetts)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review

Very nicely done. The history, which appears to be a major factor in its acquiring historical status, is well presented.

One nitpick: "Wings housing more modern services" - I can't find this in the sources. Is there a better word than "wings" which doesn't seem to have an architectural meaning on wikipedia.

I changed "wings" to "additions". The second page, third paragraph of the nomination PDF documents the exterior changes to the house. (NB one of the additions is described as a "service ell", which I have perhaps liberally interpreted as housing "more modern services".) Magic♪piano 14:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits that you're free to change.[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]