Talk:Deshong Art Museum/GA2

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Good day! I intend to review this article. I have read through the prior nomination and will go through today (or the next few days) to ensure that the points have been addressed and look out for any other potential pitfalls within the article. Thank you for your work and nomination! :3 - Generalissima (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Images

Excepting 'Alfred O Deshong Memorial.jpg' (released into Creative Commons by author) all images are public domain due to age. All seem helpful to understanding the subject. The Gallery at the end is used well due to subject matter. Everything checks out here.

Text

Lede is well-written and summarizes the text well. All claims made in lede are expanded on and cited within the main body of the text. Good, engaging prose despite short length.

Corrections from GA1

All proposed improvements, namely involving close paraphrasing issues, have been acted upon. The relative paucity of sources from times during the museum's operation and after its closure is a shame, but it would most likely require digging through newspaper archives (such as those available through the Wikipedia Library) would be required for a truly comprehensive view.

However, GA criteria merely requires broad coverage of the main points, and I believe that this is satisfied by current material and sources used. Thus...

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):
   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
This article fits the GA criteria due to the revisions. Good job, and thank you for your work on fixing it up after the prior review. :3 - Generalissima (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

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.