Talk:Winmark/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I'll do this one. Sagecandor (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Successful good article nomination
[edit]I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 22, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Good size introduction. Good writings style here, nice and concise and succinct wording presentation. Good sentence structure and size per sentence. Going forwards, I would suggest breaking up the "History" section into two smaller subsections and keeping the larger "history" section as the parent section for those. "Franchises" section: be careful about tense changes here, but overall pretty good.
- 2. Verifiable?: Cited for all statements asserted in the article to in-line citations. Good format of citations and good presentation for references section. Great job with making sure to avoid Wikipedia:Link rot for the future, nice work.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Article is very thorough, covering all major aspects of the topic including history, franchises, subsidiaries, good infobox, good introduction section.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Though the article topic is indeed a publicly-listed company, it does not have any promotional tone that comes across. Appears to present history and francise information in a matter of fact, neutral manner.
- 5. Stable? Checking stability article edit history is stable going back to September 2016. Talk page doesn't have any ongoing conflicts or problems.
- 6. Images?: One image used File:Winmark logo.png, public domain as just letters.
Encyclopedic tone. Educational article about a large publicly traded company. Not promotional in nature which is good. Nicely done ! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the good article review, Sagecandor (talk · contribs)! I'll work on making improvements to the article based on your feedback in the "Well written?" section. Cunard (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)