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

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in April 2007 and the GA requirements have been "tightened up", so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

At this point I'm only highlighting problems.

• Early Houston - Y Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 4 is a broken link. Now ref 6, but still broken. Pyrotec (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (Both ref 4 and 6 appear to work, although 6 takes a while to display. Please try again. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Ref 12 is a broken link. Now ref 16: first page opens and text is present, but picture link is broken. Pyrotec (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (fixed Postoak (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Middle and late century -
  • Downtown - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first three paragraphs are unreferenced.
• One Houston Center is unreferenced.

• • Uptown - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph is unreferenced.

• I fixed both broken links. I also will tag the unreffed paragraphs. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Theater District - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first and third paragraphs are unreferenced.
• The final paragraph is unreferenced. Note: ref 24 does not provide any validation, other than it provides the address and telephone number which are not given in the article.

• • The Museum District -

• The third paragraph is unreferenced. Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 29 does provide some information about the Chapel of St. Basil which is the subject of the final paragraph, but it does not provide verification of the statements.(done Postoak (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Residential architecture - Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph is unreferenced.
• The seventh and eight paragraphs are unreferenced.

• The WP:Lead is inadequate. OK, it just about provides an introduction, but it hardly summarises the main points.

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   WP:lead is inadequate; many statements lack WP:verification

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Partially referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Partially referenced.

   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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well-illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well-illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. This article deserves to be GA-status, but unless it can be brought up to GA-standard it will be de-listed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, we will need additional time to make corrections. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How much time do you think will be needed? Pyrotec (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several weeks should work. Postoak (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will take much longer now that more reference requests added to the article. Postoak (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Last time I looked, progess was being made so I will hold it a bit longer. However, I don't want to be in the sitution where it is left on hold and no progress is being made. Pyrotec (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References added, lead expanded. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Thanks. I'm closing this review and updating the Article History to a "keep" result. Pyrotec (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]