Talk:Wicklow Way/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stan mact (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Great detail about the routes - I want to do this hike now.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Note: there are two outdated links as per this link validator.

   Fixed one of them. The other - Line: 627 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%2Fwiki%2FWicklow_Way%3FuseFormat%3Dmobile - seems to be auto-generated by the wiki software - Joe King (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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:

   Accommodations seem to be an a popular search topic when Wickalow is searched. Is there a place for this in this article?

   On the basis of WP:NOTTRAVEL, I don't think so - Joe King (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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):

   Unsure about the free-use of the images. Second opinion appreciated!

   What is the issue with the images? They're all from Wikimedia Commons and licensed under Creative Commons Share Alike 3.0 - Joe King (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Second opinion appreciated.

   Second opinion, it looks like a great article to me. I can understand why you're unsure about the images, as you do not have experience in the area, but I can assure you that as Joe King mentions, they're all from Wikimedia Commons, and have been released under the right licenses to allow them to be used freely on the encyclopedia. The sourcing looks very good and the only criticism I'd have is that the lead looks slightly excessive. It's only a minor criticism though. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

   It's in line with the guidelines on length in WP:Lead which are 3-4 paragraphs for articles > 30,000 characters - Joe King (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

   I'm happy with that answer, just looked long to me! Retracted the comment Worm^TT · (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

   Third opinion: This article clearly satisfies GA criteria. It should be approved now. Folklore1 (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly for promotion here, so the article passes. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)