Talk:Edward Bellamy House/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sagaciousphil (talk · contribs) 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think this article looks pretty good from a very brief initial read through. I'll go through it in more detail over the next couple of days and (hopefully) Khazar2 will be willing to - once more - do a double check of my review for me as well... SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, would be glad to. Just ping me when ready. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've really just one small query on an image as indicated below - otherwise to me, this interesting article looks like it will easily pass. Ping Khazar2!! SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• I believe you are correct that the license on the Bellamy portrait was incorrect. I have changed it to {{PD-US}}, which seems more apt given what is known of its provenance. Thank you for reviewing the article! Magic♪piano 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for such a prompt response; the image is now fine. I will wait for Khazar2 to check my review as I'm still pretty inexperienced at doing GAs but I don't see any problems. As an aside, I did have to look up what an 'ell' was (with my architectural ignorance, I'd thought it was a typo initially) so would it perhaps be worth linking to ell (architecture)? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I only took a very quick look, but no additional issues jumped out at me. I think it's ready to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2 - as always, thank you, your help is very much appreciated! SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you - and congratulations to Magic Piano for another excellent contribution. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

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.	No problems.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	These all look fine to me.
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.	Article is well referenced. By the way, I managed to find an archive version of Men of Good Hope (but it is the 1951 edition) and a full view of the Lipow book is available on Google books - nothing to do with the GA review but is it worth linking to them?
	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).	I made a very minor alteration to the quote at the end of the first paragraph in the 'History' section as, to me, it felt as if it then read better; please amend if incorrect.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	I just have a query on the image of Edward Bellamy himself - does this require a US PD license? All other images are fine. Thank you - now resolved!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	A very interesting, well written, informative article