Talk:Hotel Valley Ho/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

An interesting article, generally, at GA-level. I normally leave the WP:Lead until last, but in this case I'm going to do it first.

The WP:Lead is intended to both Introduce the article and summarise the main points of the article; and whilst it does provide an introduction its not a very good summary.

I would suggest that it needs to be doubled in size; and, for instance, it does not mention the original two-phase build, the addition of the central tower, originally planed but not built; and the almost demolition.

Referencing is generally good, but there are problems with some of the web links. The City of Scottsdale, Arizona. Historic Zoning, pdf links are either down or have changed.

These should not take too long to fix, so I'm putting the review On Hold. After that, the article should make GA. Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the lead is expanded to cover major article points, and the dead references have either been relocated and revived, or deleted as unnecessary. I added some colorful bits from Chicago sports reporter Dave Hoekstra because I ran into his article during the rewrite. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Pyrotec (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting, well-illustrated, well-referenced article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
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:
Well-illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well-illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Following corrective actions, see above, I'm awarding the article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough attention and constructive suggestions! Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, it was interesting. I was going to send you note when I'd sorted the bureaucracy out; but I don't need to now - you were watching. Pyrotec (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]