Talk:Miami Terrace Reef

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Florida Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Florida; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as a Low priority article
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

	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 nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: March 26, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miami Terrace Reef article.
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. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	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 reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (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): [[Image:|15px]] b (all significant views): [[Image:|15px]]

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)