Talk:Southampton Cenotaph/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cheers - will fix the below tommorow, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • No dead links or dab links present in the article.
   • "The Memorial Wall included a total of 2,368 names from the First World War," What names were added that increased the total from 1,997 in 1922? Were the Jewish names added at this point?

   • The source didn't say; I'm presuming they were the results of later family lobbying, but can't be sure. I don't think the Jewish names were ever added, but that's simply because I don't remember reading that they had been, rather than a hard fact. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   • How unfortunate. Well, if you ever run across a source with this information, I think it would be very interesting to add.

   • "The white Portland stone exterior hides a brick core, faced by relatively thin sheets of white Portland stone." - A bit repetitive.

   • Ugh, yes. Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Spotchecks show no concerns with copyvio or sources not covering what they should.
   • I see a few books listed in the Bibliography that are not used in the References: Taylor, Miles, Compton. Is there a reason for these to be listed?

   • I'd followed the style for listing the edited volumes separately (so Kushner is in Taylor (ed), and you then list Taylor on its own line. I'm more than happy to adjust to give the full edited volume title in the same line. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

   • Oh, duh. That makes complete sense now. I still don't see any use of the Malcolm Miles book, though?

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • All image licenses look good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A couple of minor issues with prose and one with references - all should be easy to take care of. Overall, a very nice little article - quite interesting to read. I look forward to passing it once the above issues have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! One final issue with the references, but it is so minor that it really isn't even part of the GA criteria, IMO. Due to that, I am going to pass the article to GA status as is. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)