Talk:Hartsdown Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hartsdown Park has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 6, 2007 Peer review Reviewed December 6, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 20, 2007 Featured topic candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	Association football Portal The article on Hartsdown Park is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] GA review

1. It is well written. In this respect:

   (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct

   Y Done Absolutely. The peer review picked up any problems I could find

   (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

   Y Done Can't find any faults.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

   (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

   Y Done Well referenced, decent variety of reliable sources in the reference section.

   (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;

   Y Done Good referencing, nothing contentious unreferenced.

   (c) contains no original research.

   Y Done No WP:OR here sir.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

   (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;

   Y Done Yes, of course.

   (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

   Y Done Yes.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

   Y Done

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

   Y Done Won't change much at all, no edit wars or anything else, it's flying below the radar I think.

6. It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:

   (a) all images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for any non-free content; and

   Y Done Yes.

   (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   Y Done Yes.

Overall, I can't fault it against the GA criteria so I'll promote to GA now. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)