# Talk:Papoose Peak Jumps

This review is transcluded from Talk:Papoose Peak Jumps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article!  MathewTownsend (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
I made a few edits to improve the prose which you're free to change.[1]
B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
No images
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
No images
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Papoose Peak Jumps/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Unfortunately I do not feel like the article meets the GA requirements:
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The lead does not quite summarize the article. A grammar error in the last sentence of the lead.
You will have to be specific. What parts of the article do you feel are not summarized? For grammatical errors the easiest is just to fix it. Otherwise you will have to specific about what it is, not just state that there is an error. Arsenikk (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The article contradicts itself. The last sentence of the lead says that it was demolished when both the linked sources cited contradict that (they imply it was just neglected).
To build a ski-lift up the hill it would be necessary to demolish part of the structure. The lead does not state any timeframe for the demolishment, but it is obvious from the sources that human intervention has been carried out. Note that criteria 2b deals with the inclusion and formatting of references, which is clearly taken care of in this article. Arsenikk (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Paragraphs do not really seem to be each focused on any particular aspect (especially in the history section).
Please read the criteria: focus has to do with the overall coverage of the article, not the structure of individual paragraphs. There are few reliable sources available about the structure and this gives a rather short article. That is fine. The good article criteria specifically state that short articles are permissible. There is a balance within the paragraphs; they are neither overly long nor excessively short. Arsenikk (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
A picture or two of the jump would certainly be helpful.
First of all, there is a picture. Secondly, inclusions of images is only a criteria when suitable images are readily available on the Commons. Arsenikk (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I feel like the article is still B or C class (depending on the WikiProjects' scales) and needs considerable improvement.
Again, you will have to be specific. In what areas does the article need "considerable improvement"? As noted above, there are several misinterpretations of the good article criteria. Once those are accounted for, there is very little substance to the reassessment. Also, please remember to sign your comments. Arsenikk (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


### Closure???
@Jasper Deng: (non-involved editor) This GAR has been going on since 2013; I recommend you close it as soon as possible. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Dingo: I don't think this generated any consensus. My opinion is that it should be retained as a GA (the issue about demolition of the jumps can be easily fixed).--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: OK I will close this GAR as Keep for you. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)