Talk:Getty Villa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead does not fully summarise the article, see WP:LEAD

Poor prose, needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Most of the material in the article is referenced by a primary source, the museum's own website. We need more from independent sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
We could do with a more detailed description of the antiquities, with information on their original sites. Most of teh material appears to be gleaned from a couple of websites.

The whole Admission section is unnecessary, and the information will rapidly become out of date.
Information has remained stable for years. Due to concerns about parking and traffic, the Getty Villa has an unusual reservation system that is worth coverage.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It verges on a promotional tour guide, not an encyclopaedic article.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article needs a fair bit of work to bring it up to GA status. As the nominator is indefinitely blocked, I shall not be listing it at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]