Talk:Joseph Carpenter Silversmith Shop

Joseph Carpenter Silversmith Shop 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: April 27, 2014. (Reviewed version).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joseph Carpenter Silversmith Shop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 23:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: This needs a copyedit, but is otherwise in pretty solid shape right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written: Section acceptable

a. prose/copyright:

Acceptable

I did some copyediting, but I don't think that any of it was "major" (nothing conceptual, nothing controversial). You used "it" a couple too many times this time around.

b. MoS compliance:

Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references:

Acceptable

b. proper citation use:

Acceptable

Unless I'm missing something, the " Accompanying 14 photos, from 1970, 1972, and undated" part of the fifth source isn't relevant to this article. That's not a problem, you can leave it in, but I'm not sure it makes sense to include it.

c. no original research:

Acceptable

AGF on Fodor's Modern Guides New England for paraphrasing, 2b, and 2c concerns.

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects:

Acceptable

b. focused/on topic:

Acceptable

4. Neutral: Acceptable

5. Stable: Acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct:

Acceptable

I cleaned up the file description page on Commons, although it was mainly putting the information in the correct slots. A modern photograph of the building would be nice, if you could find one.

b. relevant/properly captioned:

Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: Section acceptable

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics:

Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: This was an easy one. Still waiting on you for responses to issues in the other GAN I'm doing, but this one is fine as is. PROMOTED Sven Manguard Wha? 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]