Talk:Peter II (cat)

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:Peter II (cat)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 14:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

First assessment

First assessment forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Assessment completed. This passes. If an image of Peter II ever becomes available or a free use photograph of the Cenotaph from the mid-1940s is available, I would change out the current image for either of those, but I'm not going to hold up the GA for a search for images. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Looks good after copy edit.

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

   Looks good after copy edit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Has a reference section. Although archive links are not necessary to meet GA criteria, it is best practice to include archive URLs.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Checked all sources except for the book cited, for which I will AGF.

   c. (OR):

   No synth.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Used Earwig's tool.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   As the nominator noted, Peter II was short-lived and I couldn't turn up any additional sources via a search of TWL.

   b. (focused):

   Per 3a, the article goes into all of the detail it can.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Checked page history and talk page.

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Image copyright is fine.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Caption edited.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Whitehall in 1947

• ... that Peter II, a kitten employed by the British government, was struck by a car in Whitehall? Source: https://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/bureau-cats/ "Peter the Second [...] was killed by a car while crossing the road in Whitehall very early in the morning, about 6 months after he arrived."
  • ALT1: ... that the man who struck Peter II in his car paid for his euthanisation? Source: https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/bureau-cats-heart-government/ "'Peter' [...] was run over by Mr. R. B. BISGOOD. [...] it was best to have him put to sleep [...] Mr Bisgood gave Two shillings for the services rendered, receipt attached"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tarantella (1898 Stravinsky work)

Improved to Good Article status by Tim O'Doherty (talk). Self-nominated at 10:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Peter II (cat); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Tim O'Doherty: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)