Talk:Farmington Canal State Park Trail/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will have this completed within 48 hours. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:44, 1 December 2014 (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:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

The lead appears disorganised. It consists of one large paragraph and one short one. Try splitting the first paragraph?
"Part of the Farmington Canal State Park trail, specifically the 2.9 length" - 2.9 length? Is this an actual measurement or is it 3 times bigger?
"Leary writes that the canal began at Long Wharf in New Haven" - link New Haven?
"some 56 miles" - convert to kilometres
"elevation changes from New Haven, Connecticut to Massachusetts" - there is an underlinkage in this section, link Massachusetts and maybe New Haven if you haven't already done so
"The Farmington and Hampshire companies" - New Hampshire?
"Gugino writes the" - past tense, wrote

References[edit]

All good.

On hold[edit]

This is a compact article, it is well referenced and pleasantly-surprisingly comprehensive. The major concern at the moment is the disorganisation of the lead section, I'd recommend splitting that into three articles and address every other prose concern too. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days, and once they're all done it should be promoted. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: All set, I reduced the lead and did the fixes. The Hampshire company is not of New Hampshire, but is the Hampshire Canal company. You'll not find an article on it because it does not exist yet, but I fixes a few other issues of "writes". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

Thanks for sorting those minor points out, this article now meets the GA criteria. I thought the Hampshire company would have been New Hampshire, but I wasn't too sure on that! Anyway, GA ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]