Talk:Arrivé

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Potala Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 16:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for good article status. I'll run through the six criteria and list any issues under the respective criterion, and I'll give a summary at the end. If it meets the standards on first review, I'll pass it; if it needs some cleanup to reach GA status, I'll give seven days for that cleanup to occur. Icebob99 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought on this article is that it will have to lose its GA status sometime in the future, since the building isn't yet finished and once it becomes finished and in operation, it will have information that will need to fall under the broad coverage criterion, requiring either more expansion or delisting. My initial recommendation to the nominator (SounderBruce) is that this article be listed as Future-class, but I will continue on reviewing the article since right now there are no problems. Icebob99 (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the criteria one at a time:

  1. Well-written: prose quality looks good. Meets MoS guideline for lead, layout, words to watch; no fiction involved, no list incorporation needed.
  2. Verifiable: reflist present, statistics cited with just about everything else; no original research apparent, no copyvios found.
  3. Broad: Right now, it covers everything, thus meeting this criterion. In January 2019, however, the article will fail this criterion. Again, that doesn't mean a fail right now, so I'll keep on reviewing. Just keep it in mind.
  4. Neutrality looks good.
  5. Stability: good, last edit was on 3 November 2016
  6. Images: has an image, licensing is OK.

Since this article meets the all the criteria, it officially passes, with the caveat that it will either be modified or delisted when construction is finished or significant developments occur. Icebob99 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Icebob99: Thanks for volunteering to finally review this article. I have to disagree with listing this article as Future Class and pulling the nomination, as there are several GAs and FAs for infrastructure articles whose subjects are not yet complete (e.g. the Second Avenue Subway station articles in NYC). An article can be broad in scope while continually updated (which I have promised to do, by nominating this) and keeping to GA standards. SounderBruce 18:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: sounds good, I was unaware of that precedent. I have no problems as long as it stays updated. Thanks for nominating. Icebob99 (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arrivé. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]