Talk:McDonald Ranch House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Interesting choice for an article! It looks generally very good, and I have the following comments:

• The lead should be expanded to note the pre and post-nuclear test histories of the house
  • Increased the size of the lead. When I put together a major article, I normally create a spin-off article or two. Originally this one was just a copy of the WSMR brochure. It has been expanded somewhat, and now has a spin-off article of its own. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Can more be said about the history of the occupation/purpose of the house before it was taken over by the army? (eg, was it the only house on the ranch)
  • No, I cannot find anything more on it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• "There is a display on the Schmidt family in the house during each open house" - I'd suggest moving this to the end of the article and add a bit of material explaining that it's generally not open to the public
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Do we know why the house was selected to be used to assemble the atomic bomb? It seems a surprising choice for such a critical (and expensive) test - I would have expected a purpose-built facility of some kind.
  • For a one-off? Unlikely. But I cannot find anything. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'd suggest adding some material noting the house's historic place listing at the end of the article (when did this occur, and what does it involve?)
  • Done. Also added more material about the restoration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • That all looks good. I'm pleased to pass this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: