Talk:Slab hut/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 16:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reviewing this article. It apparently has been a long time coming (oh my days, the end of May).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On first glance, per WP:LEDE, the lede needs to be expanded to reflect and summarize the extent of content in the article's body.
- Thank you for your comment, and willingness to assess. I look forward to the rest of your critique and advice. I will get to work on revisions ASAP, but am facing some other projects with more urgent deadlines. 121.45.178.104 (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I assume the IP is the nominators--but no worries, I'm not a guy who likes imposing deadlines...if it takes a day or two, or twenty, it's o.k. with me.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
The writing is passable, clear and concise. I don't notice material that is violative of any copyrights.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
I mentioned initially that the lede should be expanded and pointed to policy, no work was done in three weeks on the lede. Not one edit by the nominator regarding the lede--even though I offered flexibility in time, three weeks is too long to even address one issue I raised at the start of the review. Simply put, the lede does not reflect a comprehensive summary of article's content in accordance with WP:LEDE. There are issues with layout in not using proper headers or dividing into sections, the structure of the article is rather random in its section placement and doesn't flow. There are organizational issues that will not be remedied quickly. I direct the nominator and his fellow editors to adhere to the MOS sections on layout for guidance on how to organize an article and the appropriate use of section headers. Improper use of bolding in several sections. I don't think the GA process is appropriate to address these issues because those content issues will require too much time to rectify.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Seems to be supported by reliable sources with a reference section per MOS.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Looks to be well cited when necessary.

C. No original research:
I do not see anything that stands out as original research
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It does seem to cover most of the aspects. However, it lacks coverage of comparative architecture in early America (where slabhuts were built in several places that were called "Slabtown")

B. Focused:
I think the organizational issues undermine its focus.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
appears to be neutral
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
appears to be stable. not much work has been done on the article this year. Usually there's a lot more work done on an article in the run up to a GA nomination. There hasn't been much work done on this article in almost 3 years.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
has images, but I am not checking them because other overwhelming issues already lead me to close this review

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
images appear relevant to article.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
there are too many issues regarding this article that won't be fixed anytime soon. it is not GA quality per the criteria.

Thank you for your comprehensive assessment. I have other projects demanding my attention, but will begin revising as per your comments ASAP. Bluedawe 01:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]