Talk:Audubon Sharon

Audubon Sharon has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 2, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 15:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will have this completed within 48 hours. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments[edit]

"In 1961, the Ford's donated Bog Meadow Farm" - it just jumps straight into too much information. An unfamiliar reader would have no idea who The Fords are? Is it Clement and Keyo Ford?

Yes, they donated the estate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The 1,147 acres" - it would be best to use the conversion template {{convert|1147|acre|km2}} into square miles, for all instances

Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The wildlife sanctuary began in 1962 after Miles donated her property" - who is Miles?

Again, Emily Winthrop Miles - first sentence of the paragraph.

"The center includes a raptor aviary, an herb garden and a bird and butterfly garden, and a sugarhouse" - not grammatically great, too many conjunctions - cut that 'and'

This is actually correct because it is "a bird and butterfly garden" - it is singular with a dual purpose. It is still a single garden. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Borland is also honored with a 0.75 miles (1.21 km) trail" - interesting choice, why was it honoured? Was it given?

UK vs USA spelling... ha. The trail is in honor of his work and I cut out a lot of stuff likely to upset people with "NPOV" because it is actually an inspirational walk with sounds and sights that essentially inspired the essays penned by Borland. Yep, that's the short of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Emily Miles acquired 740 acres of land in Sharon, Connecticut" - Sharon should be linked again, I know it was already linked in the lead but this section of the article has no links at all

Okay.

Although not a requirement for GA, it would be nice and more illustrating for an imagine to be included in this article. Don't worry, it won't affect this GAN - just a suggestion

I don't have any free pictures to use, but I wanted to use them so badly. I haven't contacted the organization for images, but that would potentially open up more issues with OTRS usage...

"Notes" section should come under references

He removed it... and I must say, it works. I doubt anyone is going to obsess over the incorrect reference in a publication that I double checked and corrected without issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The references all appear to be working. The toolserver says Ref 8 is dead, but I checked it myself and it appears to be working. Strange. Anyway this meets the criteria.

Yeah, that website takes a longer time to load, Toolserver has been acting up anyway. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold[edit]

Short review, short article. It's generally well written, and the only thing standing in the way of it becoming GA are those confusing prose issues which I mentioned (along with everything else). This is on hold for seven days, once they're addressed we'll take another look. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: - All set. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted[edit]

Looks like we're all good to go, thanks for addressing those points. The article is compact, well written and now the confusion has been sorted. Another GA ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]