Talk:Kőbánya cellar system

Kőbánya cellar system has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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: May 17, 2018. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Kőbánya cellar system appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 September 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the cellar system (pictured) under the Kőbánya district of Budapest, Hungary, has served as a limestone quarry, a beer cellar, an aircraft engine factory, and a bicycle race venue?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kőbánya cellar system.

Wikipedia

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hungary

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary 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.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Mdob (talk · contribs) 18:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria[edit]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

The lead section is a mess. The first paragraph is way to long (the text after "While intricate ..." should be separated in a new paragraph or better yet, deleted. There are too many citations for the reading to be smooth.

. Ok, corrected. The lead section is now in two neat paragraphs.

Mdob (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

8 good, small, non-intrusive images Mdob (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

subtitle of the image (Anton Dreher Sr. (id. Dréher Antal)) should be changed to something more informative, like "Anton Dreher Sr., austrian brewer, first wine brewer in the Cellar" Mdob (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Corrected. Mdob (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdob and Rev-san: Hello! What is the status of this review? Doesn't look like any progress has been made in almost 2 months.--Dom497 (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdob and Dom497: I have fixed the article as good as I could. I hope it gets GA status. Good luck with further work on Wikipedia! --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]