Talk:Fallingwater/GA1
Latest comment: 22 hours ago by ErnestKrause in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 20:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll take this review, as part of the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive; please consider participating in the latter. Comments to start appearing in the next few days. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Comments from ErnestKrause
editAirshipJungleman29 is the main reviewer here and these are some optional comments and observations.
- Regarding the Impact section towards the end of the article, I'm thinking that the article might benefit from a stronger starting point as its opening sentence rather than a comment on sightseeing observations. In the Peter Gay book titled Modernism there is a nice summary of the impact of the building as being among the finest homes which Modernism had to offer.
- There is no floor plan included in any part of the article. It might be nice to see at least something along these lines.
- The section structure for the entire article looks fairly good though occasionally there seem to be very short 2-3 sentence paragraphs, which seems on the short side for a full paragraph. It might be worth looking at. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)