Talk:Blair House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I will review this Good Article nominee. Shearonink (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

With my first pass, everything seems to be in fairly-good order but will do some deep reading to make sure this article fulfills the six GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Other guest facilities" section

I understand that this information is interesting but am not sure it belongs in an article about Blair House/Lee House/etc. Nominator User:LavaBaron, I would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Shearonink, I'm very sorry for my delayed reply. I agree and have removed this section. LavaBaron (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Life interferes even with Wikipedia-ing sometimes. I hope you saved the content - it was fascinating. I think there might be room for it in one of the diplomacy/protocol articles perhaps?... Anyway, I will do a deep read and some passes through the article but it is generally looking like if basically fulfills the 6 GA criteria. I just need to really check & confirm the references. I hope to get this done within the week or next few days. Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

References

• ref name="cspan": Is this to the video or to the description that accompanies it (because there is no mention of the "Dillon Room" in the accompanying paragraph). If the cite is to the actual video then the template should probably be Template:Cite AV media instead of "cite web".
• Also, the first incidence of a ref in an article should be the establishing ref and is complete, the subsequent refs should be the truncated ref name = "[name]"/ versions. The order as it stands now for the cspan refs is slightly off.

All the references otherwise check out - meaning so far as I can tell none of them have gone stale or don't quite say what they should (and yes, I did go through almost every single one). I did take the liberty of adjusting one URL to show the page not the cover of the cited reference. Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Shearonink - I just fixed these. LavaBaron (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Status

I am happy to say that this article in my opinion now fulfills all the categories for a WIkipedia Good Article. It is:

• Well-written - and interesting to read too!
• Verifiable with no original research - every reference is valid, and is applicable to the cited information
• Broad in its coverage - covers the history of all the various buildings plus the staff & protocol issues.
• Neutral
• Stable - no edit wars that I am aware of
• Illustrated by appropriate images - very much so & they seem carefully selected.

Congratulations to all the editors who have worked on this article, especially User: LavaBaron. Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)