Talk:Sauganash Hotel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. -- Cirt (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 24, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Passes here. Writing quality is fair. Certainly, in some places, it is apparent that there were attempts at paraphrasing from secondary sources, though this comes close to the text of the sources themselves, it is enough modification combined with citing the sources combined with very little usage, for it to be acceptable paraphrasing. Probably good enough writing quality for GA status, but would strongly recommend peer review process post GA, for further copyediting from editors previously uninvolved with the article.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Concerns about comprehensiveness. The general article overall seems a bit small, the breadth of info covered, a bit scant. Please see search of "Sauganash Hotel" discussion in published books, where the search yields over 850 results. The article at present uses less than two percent of these sources. I would suggest further expansion of the article, with at least a doubling of secondary sources utilized in the text, from the amount at present status.

4. Neutral point of view?: Passes here. No major concerns about neutral wording or NPOV.

5. Article stability? Passes here. No issues with stability, upon inspection of article edit history, and article talk page history.

6. Images?: Passes here. Two images used from Wikimedia Commons, of appropriate usage, no free-use problems.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. -- Cirt (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, additional sources, it seems that most sources are mirroring each other in the search that you gave. Do you want me to add multiple refs to each fact just to double the number of sources. I have added the minimal new content that I have found. Of course, I could add multiple refs to facts, but there is not much encyclopedic content missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The search provided above yields over eight hundred results. Surely not all of them are "mirrors" of each other. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there is little to go by so all history books are rehashing the same historical content. I am on page four of the search and have only found four new encyclopedic facts. It seems to me to be a level of detail not really required for GA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you have not gone through these sources before. It is good you are doing so now. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want stuff like this added?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20 refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the prompt response. GA Passed. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]