Talk:Constitution Square Historic Site/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've had a quick read of the article, and it looks to be at or about GA-level, but I've not yet checked any references. I'm now working my way through the article in more depth, starting at History working to the end and then going back to the WP:Lead. I hope to have this completed today. Pyrotec (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• History -

Looks OK.

• Buildings -

Looks OK.

• Events -

Looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• This provides a reasonable introduction to the topic and a reasonable summary of the main points. It would not hurt to add a bit more detail to the summary, but I'm not going to put the review On Hold whilst this is done. Pyrotec (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated. Many of them taken by the nominator.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to be able to award GA-status to this article. Congratulations on a fine well illustrated and referenced article.