Talk:Getty Villa/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add links to the introductory paragraph, often a very overlooked section when it comes to referencing because it is so basic. It should be easy to use some of the same refs you are already using to do it. Other than that it looks good. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article has previously been unfairly failed due to conflicts wirh editors. I also do believe that GA is oft being treated as if it were an FA nomination. This exceeds the quality of any other source or encyclopedia on the topic, and therefore I should pass it with no further review. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only npov issues I see are the parking lot things, the admission fees, and the hours. I also don't like audio tours. But on the other hand, do these things not fall under the terms of broad coverage, something which, in previous reviews, this article has been blamed of lacking. I stick to my statement, and add to it that a GA status should be used to designate any better than average encyclopedic entry, and if every candidate was nominated, it could be used as a method of verifying that the article is generally good, and not subject to the common criticisms of Wikipedia, but not necessarily that the article is an outstanding, stellar piece of work; a masterpiece. GA<FA and relative to both a hard copy entry and the majority of other Wikipedia entries, this is a good article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was failed due to the work needed an not because of any conflict. I had no prior contact of the editor. This is not a GA article and was passed based on incorrect and assumed issues not pertaining to the article itself. De-listing as it it is is not a GA today.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]