Jump to content

Talk:Briarcliff Farms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBriarcliff Farms has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink 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.
Good topic starBriarcliff Farms is part of the Briarcliff Manor series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2015Good article nomineeListed
May 6, 2015Good topic candidatePromoted
January 29, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 11, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Briarcliff Farms/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 04:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Though I couldn't find anything (much) in the MoS, what Atsme suggested about summarizing the quote and inserting it into the article is what I'm thinking, the quote can't be shortened or formatted better.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. 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). Red link for footnote 9 - Cite error: The named reference Leslie was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. A very detailed and concise article. Worthy of GA status.

Awesome, thanks! For my and others' future note, this article became a GA on April 1, 2015; not an April Fool's joke.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 00:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]