Talk:Miami Terrace Reef

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Florida, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the State of Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to South Florida on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Miami Terrace Reef was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-26

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miami Terrace Reef article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Good Article candidate

[edit] Itemized list

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

[edit] Commentary & explaination

It is with much sadness that I am going to fail the GA nomination of this article for now, definitely without prejudice -- please renominate! The article is pretty well written, but there are a few snags. First off, it seems that this article is very short (but packed with references!). I think perhaps a little expansion is in order (especially the significance of the topic). I also think we could get a few more pictures in the article. One of the sources (#9 I believe) is a wikipedia internal reference (though I applaud the inline citation formatting). I think that with some work this could be a more comprehensive article worthy of WP:GA status. /Blaxthos 06:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)