Talk:Packy mural/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 07:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to review this. MWright96 (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Description and history

• Historic Preservation League of Oregon is a dab link
  • I added the org's current name. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• " which was considered a "painted wall decoration", " - considered by whom? The Portland Bureau of Planning?
  • I changed the wording a bit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• "In addition, The mural" - the first letter of the third word in this sentence shouldn't be captalized
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• The Wikilink to The Oregonian in this section should be removed and added to the one in the Description and history sub-section
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

References

• Reference 5 is missing the page number
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Reference 7 needs to say it comes from HighBeam Research and that subscription is required to access the source
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• The first link in Reference 10 needs an access date since its from an online source
  • Done. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading the article. On hold until the minor points have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@MWright96: Thank you so much for reviewing this article. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or questions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Changes are all good. Promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a bit stumped by references 1, 2 & 10, all of which list two distinct sources ... it's unclear to me which footnote number relates to which bullet reference. I will, if you wish AB, implement {{sfn}} on this to sort out the WP:FNNR described under 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable but don't think I can proceed because of those refs. (And that's presuming you want it sfn'd) --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: Thanks for chiming in. I am fine with how the references are currently displayed (I am not really sure what converting to "sfn" would look like). For Ref #1, the wording in the two sources is very similar - in fact, I was surprised to see different authors listed. But I wanted to note both sources, though most people would obviously access the URL over the database article. For Ref #2, these are similar documents, but I wanted to include both, just in case. The second source in Ref #10 is actually just a photograph and caption. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No probs. sfn example would be History of Alnmouth where references in the text point to bare-bones references, which in turn point to sources. I think that was the drift of the WP:FNNR drift :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to discuss this in a separate thread, if you want, but I am going to archive this GA review. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.