Talk:Point Stephens Light

Point Stephens Light has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 23, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Australia: New South Wales / Maritime Low‑importance

	Australia portal Point Stephens Light is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian maritime history (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Lighthouses Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lighthouses and other water navigational aids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LighthousesWikipedia:WikiProject LighthousesTemplate:WikiProject LighthousesLighthouses articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Point Stephens Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria edit

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose and compliance with MoS fine, I made a few minor copy-edits.[1]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
References are to Rs, all check out.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Fine
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
OK, I think this adequately meets the WP:GACR, so I am happy to list this. I am sorry that you have had to wait do long. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks you! --Muhandes (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic