Talk:Stanley Park/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: Quadell (talk · contribs) 18:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Rhild

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The grammar is fine, and copyright law is respected, but the prose still has problems. In particular, there are many single-sentence or two-sentence paragraphs throughout the article, and these should be rare or non-existent. Some sections, such as "Leasing the land", read like a list.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A lead should summarize all the main sections of the article. This lead does not do that. Also, a lead should contain no more than four paragraphs. In addition, sections of text in this article are bolded for no clear reason.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references section seems fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The citations given do not always cover the material in the article. For example, note 49 does cover the fact that there were 115 km winds and that 60% of the western edge was damaged, but it doesn't mention Prospect Point at all. For another example, none of the information cited by note 42 could be found at the source.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some statements have no source, and appear to be OR. (For example, the claim that "Baby Beluga" was inspired by one of the whales at the aquarium is unsourced. Some direct quotes, such as "The park lost some of its oldest trees through major storms twice in the last century and then again in 2006", have no clear source.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All main topics are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some of the sections on history go into far more detail than one would expect, especially since the "Today" section is relatively short. Consider making a separate History of Stanley Park article with most of this detail, and summarizing it here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality problems.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems with stability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Most of the images are fine, but a few have problems. If we don't know who the creator of File:HMS Discovery 1789 Vancouver.jpg was or when it was created, then we can't say for sure that it's in the public domain. Similarly, the date for File:Stanley Park Zoo black bear.jpg is given as "1900s". That doesn't make it clear if the photo was created before 1949. Finally, for File:StormDamageThreatensSP.jpg, the photo is PD, but the newspaper article text might not be; it depends on the year of death of the author, and we don't know that.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Almost. The only nitpick is that captions only need full stops when they are complete sentences. Captions like "Stanley Park's popular miniature railroad" should not have a full stop.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article has several problems that will need to be resolved before it can attain GA status.

I'll leave this nomination on hold and open for a week. If the problems are resolved in that time, then it will pass; otherwise it will fail. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there has been no activity to resolve these issues, I am closing this nomination as "not passing". If you resolve the issues listed above, feel free to renominate the article for GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:18, 8 December 2013 (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.