Talk:Lamu Fort

Lamu Fort has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 10, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: Kenya Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). Architecture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Fortifications / African This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force African military history task force

Lamu Museum redirects to this article. However this does not seem to be the same 'Lamu Museum' shown here (and which has 'Lamu Museum' over its entrance): http://www.museums.or.ke/58-2/ Or are the two very close to each other? (My interest is that I am trying to determine which museum James De Vere Allen was once the curator of, as noted on on the back cover of 'Swahili Origins') 82.152.154.86 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lamu Fort/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ColonelHenry (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I look forward to reviewing this article and will began within the next 48 hours.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First thought, just a suggestion not required - perhaps some type of pronunciation guide for the word Lamu (either IPA or standard dictionary-style phonetics) and its source language. Lamu looks simple, but I don't know if it's "LAH-moo" or "LAY-moo". More to follow.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: would be best to answer that one/♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General assessment

This is a great article, and we should both be thankful to Google Books and archive.org for making the sources easily accessible (I often think they're a resource comparable to or more important to assembled accessible knowledge than the Library at Alexandria).

The article is well-written and solidly sourced, with a consistent reference style, and I see no indication of content that is violates original research or synthesis policies (satisfies criteria 2). Article comprehensively covers the subject and achieves the desired balance of summary and detail (satisfies criteria 3) Article is neutral with no indication of bias or POV issues (satisfies criteria 4); appears to be stable with no indication of content disputes, edit-warring, tendentious editing, etc. (satisfies criteria 5); and is illustrated by appropriate images per IUP (satisfies criteria 6, enumerated below).

Per Criteria 1: The article is well-written, clear and concise. I see no issues with spelling or grammar. There is no indication of any copyvio or close paraphrasing after reviewing the sources provided. I do have one minor comment regarding consistency below, but am confident that would be satisfied quickly. (satisfies criteria 1a, minor comment). I think the article's lede is sufficient per MOS. I assert the policies/guidelines on words to watch, fiction and list incorporation considerations are not relevant to this article. As for layout, I have a minor question regarding a brief section and a not-required suggestion on external links. (generally satisfies criteria 1b, minor question)

Image check

Four images used in the article, all are in compliance with WP:IUP with appropriate use rationales, and satisfies criteria 6.

• File:LamuFort.jpg - user created photograph, CC3.0/GNU release, GOOD.
• File:Kenya location map.svg - user created map, CC3.0/GNU release, GOOD.
• File:Lamu fort in 1892 by Adolph Jacob Hertz 1865-1912.png - over 100-yr-old PD photograph/modern publication, sufficient 2D reproduction fair use rationale - GOOD.
• File:Lamu fort in 1892 by Adolph Jacob Hertz 1865-1912 (b).png - over 100-yr-old PD photograph/modern publication, sufficient 2D reproduction fair use rationale - GOOD.

Just a few issues

• Consistency. The article is "Lamu Fort", but in there are usages of Lamu fort, and Fort Lamu--I think the usage should be consistent through the article, and if there's an issue where a source renders it one way, a paraphrase of "the fort" would be preferable to inconsistency.

Done, yup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an appropriate external link to the Lamu Fort site or museum?

I don't think so, only Kenyan museums website . I've added that.

• The "Present Use" section is rather short for a stand-alone section, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" - would it be better to include it as the conclusion of the history section--since it's material is relevant to its recent transition into its museum role.

Merged into history, agreed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessing more per Criteria 1 next. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor C1 issues added above. After the nominator's response, I foresee promotion to GA.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed I believe, the pronunciation thing would be an afterthought.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, promoted per comments above and template below.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   An excellent article and well worthy of that GA green thingy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ColonelHenry: Review much appreciated Colonel, many thanks for dat green thingy..♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]