Talk:Thorp, Washington/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 00:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Lots of the article is wrote in list form, when it should be wrote in prose instead (see points of interest; reads like a travel guide). While most prose is alright, I am against the use of the word "friends", etc, as it is a causal saying. Removing "unincorporated town" would be a good idea as well, because "census-designed place" already covers that and thus is redundant (the general convention as well). In addition, the structure for a geography (or any) article seems to be incorrect. For instance, the convention is for history to be the first section in such a town article and external links (which don't seem to meet WP:ELNO) are to be the last section. I am also concerned that this article reads like a travel guide which Wikipedia is not (see Wikivoyage) espically with a bullet list (should certainly be prose) describing non-notable things in the town like F. C. Porter Store. And the need for describing pronunciations are not necessary mostly, except for the name of the place at the first part. TB randley 00:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Some references are not formatted properly (ref 4), while there are a couple {{citation needed}} tags and other unreferenced statements in the article which define original research. TB randley 00:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I am concerned with this article's focused topic on the town. It should provide a brief mention on every aspect of the town (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline for further guidance and details) but not a complete section on specific aspects (i.e.: Historic Thorp Mill, Thorp School District). Instead, replace with less specific section but still a little bit information there (preferably only one paragraph); for instance, for the school district, replace with a section entitled "education" with details about nearby colleges and universities and just a little part on the district. TB randley 00:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit wars or disputes that I can see. TB randley 00:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Seven days to significantly address the issues, but there are a bit. Sorry for the criticism, but this should make the article better regardless. TB randley 00:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This article was nominated by someone who had nothing to do with its creation or editing, has done nothing to address the above review, has ignored a number of talk-page pings to respond in some way (the latest a week ago), yet did 242 Wikipedia edits yesterday alone. The seven days were up eleven days ago: it's time to close this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failed, I forgot previously. TB randley 14:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]