Talk:City and Town Hall (Rochelle, Illinois)/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process.

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of November 21, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Ref #2 does not support many of the details, eg cannon, cost of $2000 for purchase of adjacent lots, Alderman Parker; - also as this is a long document individual pages should be cited - I consolidated 3 and 4 as they are to the same source; ref #1 is just to a general information page for NRIS I think you should be able to find some other sources for much of this information.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, we need some broader referencing and details of specific page nymbers for specific citations. On hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects wuill be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

   No-one has responded or made any effort to fix things so this will be delisted on 21 November. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, article de-listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)