Talk:Central Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is reasonably good, and fairly easy to read. There's a couple of minor issues with the manual of style. For one, there shouldn't be any external links in the lead section (or anywhere in article text). Also, the article's title should not be used in section headers -- "Central Park Today" should be changed to simply "Today" (I'd also recommend starting the article with history, and then going into "Today" after history, so that it would be chronologically ordered. It's a bit awkward to start with today, go back, and then jump up to the activities).

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I don't really see much original research, but the article appears inadequately referenced. There are several key facts and figures in the article, as well as some quotes, that need to be cited using inline citations. The citations should also follow a consistent formatting, so it might help to review WP:CITE. Usually, when the notes/references format is followed, 'notes' contains the inline citations and 'references' contains an alphabetical listing of those citations that are cited inline. The references listed in the 'references' section don't appear to be used inline, so it's not clear what information is being used from those sources. Furthermore, inline citations in the 'notes' section should include full citation information -- author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved, etc.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The 'other issues' section seems to be a bit of a random collection of various facts, isn't organized well, and loses focus. It seems to have become somewhat of a dumping ground for editors to place things they don't know where to put it in the article. Some information could be moved to history, as historical background? Some information might seem best if it were in a 'flora and fauna' or 'ecology' section? It might also be good to have a section entitled 'administration', where the central administration of the park could be discussed, as well as other services, like ambulance and maintenance services.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article meets WP:NPOV guidelines and is written in a fair tone.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable. I don't see any evidence of edit-warring or WP:3RR violations.

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

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

   Images are reasonably good, high quality, and captioned. There are some minor image issues which need to be addressed (see below).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• File:Rat rock 2 008.jpg -- No image description in file's description page.

* File:Central Park New York City.png -- The image has been tagged that there is a vector version of it available, which should replace it.

• There's a reasonably large number of external links. Some of those could be pruned a bit in accordance with WP:EL. Some could be used as references instead (websites that are used as citations should not appear in external links).

* Template issue: "Central Park is an 843 acres (3.41 km2; 1.317 sq mi) public. . ." -- the sentence doesn't read correctly, since it should state that, "Central Park is an 843 acre public . . ." The template used in conversion is forcing it to read "acres", which isn't grammatical correct in this case. Since the conversion is now known, it might be better to just use plain text for this now.

• The '20th century' subsection header isn't really accurate, since the next section is '1960-1980', followed by '1980-present', with both of those sections also containing content in the 20th century. Perhaps a better title of that subsection would be '1900-1960'?

The article does not currently meet all six good article criteria. I think the issues are able to be worked on, as it is reasonably close and the overall prose is reasonably good. So I will leave this article on hold until 3/1/2010 so that the issues may be addressed. Once it meets all six criteria, it can be listed at WP:GA. Cheers! WTF? (talk) 17:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No response to review after one month, and most edits since 2/15/2010 are reverting previous edits, so the article is no longer stable, either. The article is being delisted from WP:GAN at this time; it can be renominated once the issues above are resolved and it meets the six GA criteria. WTF? (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)