Talk:Tiny Town (miniature park)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Tiny Town (miniature park). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to give this article a review for possible Good Article status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 04:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I think on the whole that the article qualifies on this criteria, but the lead could do with more content.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   According to the External links tool apparently newspapers.com has changed their internal URL nomenclature since the refs were inserted. The refs need to be adjusted to the most correct URL possible, helps keep down the number of redirects etc.  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran copyvio tool - none found. Good job.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I think so. This is a small event - nicely-written article about a small-town type of event.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|yes}

   Please see section below - thanks. =  Done added picture of Superintendent by structures. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Shearonink:  Done all and ready for re-review.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Doug Coldwell: One last thing - Did a last proofread/read-through and I just realized that the article is missing a category: shouldn't it also be in Cat:miniature parks? Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Shearonink:  Done added that Category --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

   Nicely done article about a small-town/Middle-America event. Going forward I think it would be interesting if additional images could be found, especially if any of the structures have survived into present-day so the photos would be crystal-clear. Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there any photos of Tiny Town as it existed in its full/outdoor installation? All the photos in the article are of the pre-installation inside the Convention Center or when the houses were being sold-off etc. Would add a lot to the readers' understanding of the sheer scale of the project. Shearonink (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That Superintendent image is a big help - all of the other photos don't really give a sense of the scale. I myself am somewhat amazed at the sheer size of the outdoor installation. I didn't realize it was basically a Lilliputian theme park/walkaround park. Going forward, if any other photos could be found - maybe a postcard? - of an entire street with people walking on it...that would be cool. Shearonink (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake - too many men whose names started with the initial "W.". That is a photo of the director of publicity. Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why is the superintendent not named anywhere, given that he was supposedly instrumental in the development of the miniature town? —Noswall59 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC).

• Put in information and name of the superintendent of schools, W.W. Thomas.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks @Noswall59: - good catch. Shearonink (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)