Talk:Piedmont Park/GA2

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the 1887 Piedmont Exposition section, this sentence ---> "President Grover Cleveland who attended with his new wife, Frances Folsom", somehow reads strange, maybe removing "new", since that makes the sentence awkward? In the Olmsted plan section, it would be best if the short sentences be combined together in a paragraph, as the short sentences look dull in the article. In the 20th century growth and development, I ended up fixing the word "Noteable" ---> "Notable", if this is wrong, which I don't think it is, please revert it back. In the Drought section, "In January 2008" it would be best to place a comma after "2008". All done except for the comma after "In January 2008".  Done

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Opening section, I believe the link "Benjamin Walker" is incorrect, since he was born in 1913 and the section talks about him farming the land in 1887. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here. Dates need to be un-linked, per here. Removed red links  Done

   Half-check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

   Ah, I see that there were some additional dead links in the footnotes. I've removed them.  Done

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   For future reference, don't add a comma between a two refs., see here, here, and here.

   B. 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):

   Does Reference 12 covers all this ---> "1904 for was an important year for the park. First, George Washington Collier died in 1903. Collier owned 202 acres (0.82 km2) of land to the west and north of the park that was sold for $300,000.00 to developers. Also that year, the city bought the park for $98,000 finally bring Piedmont Park into the Atlanta city limits. Mayor Evan Howell agreed to purchase the park, but only if it included those developed areas adjacent to the park which would add approximately $35,000.00-$40,000.00 in tax revenues annually"?

   The source appears to cover this and much other material. That said, I think that the paragraph could use some wordsmithing to sharpen the prose.  Done

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statements can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ThinkBlue. I didn't nominate this article but I will be happy to help the nominator address some of the issues you raised in your review. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Majoreditor for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ThinkBlue! Majoreditor (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)