Talk:Grapevine, Texas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should have a lead of between three and four paragraphs. The lead should appropriately summarize the body of the article, without including information not contained in the body.
   • External links should be turned into references or moved to the External links section, rather than being linked directly through the text of the article.
   • The Media section is currently a mostly unsourced list of trivia. How is it relevant to Grapevine that these media events happened in the town? Did the filming affect anything in the town? Is it a notable/common place for film-makers?
   • Is the Education section truly complete? For example, the town website says there is at least one alternative school? And is there really only one private high school? I live in a town smaller than Grapevine, and we have three (one Christian, one Catholic, and one high-end college prep). Is there a community college in the town? What are the nearest two-year/four-year schools?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • There are numerous places throughout the article that are lacking referencing, many of which include statistics and/or opinions. For example (and these are just examples, there are additional places that need referencing), the Geography section, the Demographics section, the Crime section and many of the Transportation subsections.
   • The link check tool found 16 dead links, see the report here. A number of these are already tagged in the article, but a few are not.
   • Why are we using a concealed handgun manual as a source for population data? (Ref #14, Bird, Chris)
   • Numerous refs missing various pieces of information: titles, publishers, accessdates, etc. I even see some that are simply bare urls.

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.:

   No edit wars, but also obviously no push to clean up the article before bringing it to GAN.

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

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

   • Image galleries are discouraged. There is enough un-illustrated text in the article that a number of the images in the gallery can be moved up to the body of the article. The remainder can be linked to through a link to the Commons category.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am going to fail this article's GA nomination at this point, due to the large amount of work that it needs to meet GA criteria. The referencing is the main point where work is needed - once this is addressed the article will be much closer to GA status. I have not checked NPOV compliance, coverage, image licensing or done a detailed prose check, due to the amount of work needed in other areas. In general, a nominator should conduct work on an article before nominating it for GA - the majority of articles floating around WP are not ready for GAN and should have at least a quick cleaning before a nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)