Talk:Brampton Arts Walk of Fame

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brampton Walk of Fame/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Zanimum

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are many problems with grammar. The very first sentence is not a sentence, for instance. There are seeming contradictions (e.g. "The first three inductees will be unveiled" vs. a list of inductees.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the lead section should summarize the other sections of the article, and should not contain content not found elsewhere. This lead contains most of the article's information. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists), lists of content should be incorporated into prose in most cases. The information in these lists should be described in prose instead. Categories, infobox, and references are all good.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are very good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Citations are well done.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not a significant problem.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is a very short article. However, there is little that can be said definitively about an unofficial walk about which few official sources yet mention. This will probably change in the coming months.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There are no edit wars. But since this walk will become official in the fall, and little official information is available, I would expect information to change rapidly in the coming months.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The one image is fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The caption does not describe the significance, and is not in the section where the subject is mentioned. There are no other pictures, though photos of the Rose Theatre, the location, and the other inductees could be acquired.
	7. Overall assessment.	It does not pass GA criteria at this time. I would recommend submitting this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors or to Wikipedia:Peer review.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Brampton Walk of Fame/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose could do with copy-editing to render into "reasonably good prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References to Twitter, a blog (High Heel Confidential), Youtube, etc are not WP:RS I question whether an article in a Lancashire (England) Asian online newspapere is a Rs for this article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is no evidence from RS that the subject of this article exists. There are passing mentions that it may exist in the future, but everything else is unsupported conjecture. The only hard facts appear to be unrelated to the article subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   As there is little fact in the article, it is hard to determine this

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images have suitable licences or rationales, but those of persons lack captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is nowhere near GA status and indeed the notability of the subject is questionable. Not listed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:BipashaBasu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BipashaBasu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:BipashaBasu.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brampton Arts Walk of Fame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iifa2011toronto.com/en/eventsFestivities.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231002156/http://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/News/Documents/CeleBRAMPTON.pdf to http://www.brampton.ca/EN/City-Hall/News/Documents/CeleBRAMPTON.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brampton Arts Walk of Fame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iifa2011toronto.com/en/eventsFestivities.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120720000726/http://www.backstage.com/bso/advice/new-york-production-listings-1003971077.story to http://www.backstage.com/bso/advice/new-york-production-listings-1003971077.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090903033816/http://www.canadaswalkoffame.com/inductee/kids-in-the-hall to http://www.canadaswalkoffame.com/inductee/kids-in-the-hall

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)