# Talk:Green Bay Harbor Entrance Light

Per the question at the Teahouse, I took a quick read and have 3 comments.

The sources in the lead could be moved to the body. Sources are only supposed to be in the body of the article, as the lead is supposed to be a summary.
The list of people isn't sourced in a way that makes it obvious which source is being used there.
The entire thing is a little bit short, but that's not a big issue.
Overall, I'd say you stand a good chance of getting it to GA in a formal review.  White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Adityavagarwal  I looked at it too after seeing the teahouse thread. My only comment is that I think the statement "an offshore lighthouse in Green Bay," should be "an offshore lighthouse near Green Bay,". Go Pack! DennisPietras (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Done that :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
How to modify the second issue you pointed. The first one is done. The third one is because it is almost what could be there, as not much information is there. Still, any suggestions might be really helpful. Also, that user page you have looks so nice. How to make one like that? :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Green Bay Harbor Entrance Light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: White Arabian Filly (talk · contribs) 21:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I've used the premade checklists before and they're a little clunky, so for this one I'm writing my own checklist.
GA criteria

An article must be relatively well-written.
It must be sourced using reliable references.
An article must be broad in its coverage.
An article must be neutral.
The article must be stable, with no ongoing edit wars.
Images used must be free or applicable fair use.
The article must be free of copyright violations.
Stacking this article up against the criteria

Well-written. This one is a yes. I don't know squat about lighthouses or harbor lights, to put it bluntly, and I had no problem understanding anything that's here.
Referenced. Yes. There are a lot of good references, and they look very reliable.
Broad in coverage. Yes. It covers virtually every possible aspect of the topic, from the history to location.
Neutral. Yes. I don't see any promotional tone here.
Stable. No edit wars here.
Images. All the pictures are either in the public domain or freely licensed.
Copyright. Looking at the edit history, I can see there was some stuff copied from another website and pasted here. An admin deleted it and the article as it stands is currently free of copyright. However you/any other editors must be very, very careful not to ever copy-paste again. It violates one of Wikipedia's core policies and is just problematic in general, as it's stealing somebody's work without giving them credit.

Ok, this is all for now. I'll read the article again tomorrow and address any problems I might notice. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I reread the article and don't see any problems, except the list of keepers isn't obviously sourced. If that is taken care of, I think I can close it as a pass. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Adityavagarwal, do you know which source the stuff about the keepers comes from? I can't tell from the references. If you can, it'd be better to put it somewhere in that section, probably at the bottom.  Thanks. If you can clear up that one thing, I think this will be a good article. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I referenced the list of keepers from "http://www.terrypepper.com/lights/michigan/greenbay/keepers.htm" and "http://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=635". The starting line of the section "Before the light was automated in 1979, people were in charge of the light on a continuous basis. The heads and first assistants of the light played a prominent role in carrying out the daily processes of the light.[14][8]" has the reference numbers 14 and 8 right? Those are the ones that refer to the list. I thought it would refer to the list. Do you think it should be put somewhere else? "probably at the bottom" you mean I should add a few lines more after the list and then refer to the list there? This is because currently there is no line after the list. A new section is present, instead. Also, thank you for your quick response. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah. That wasn't clear before. I'm closing this as a pass, congrats! White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)