Talk:Wignacourt Aqueduct/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AHeneen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (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 with the prose and spelling and grammar are fine. The only thing that seems odd is that there are Latin inscriptions with only one translation. Either provide English translations for all of them or don't provide any of the inscriptions.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues with this criteria. See below for a comment about the use of images in this article.
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.	The article has a references section. All references are properly formatted. References that have an archived version should have the parameter "dead-ur=no" added, but that is a minor issue that doesn't prevent this article from being promoted to GA.
	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).	The quotations in the article are supported by reliable sources, but the English translation ("As there is life in water, life started from water") of the inscription on the Il-Monument tat-Tromba is not supported by the source. If the translation was added by a Wikipedian who understands Latin, it is fine (see WP:TRANSCRIPTION and WP:NONENG#Quoting non-English sources).
	2c. it contains no original research.	No apparent original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Having checked most of the sources, I haven't seen any copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing in this article is out-of-scope. It is well written and the subtopics covered are relevant and appropriate.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No section of the article needs to be written in summary style with a separate article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I don't see anything that is a contentious issue or any prose that states an opinion as fact.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars. There were a lot of edits just after the nomination, but it looks like all edits were constructive.
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.	All images have a free license. There are no fair use images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to this article and have suitable captions. There are a lot of images in comparison to the text. In my opinion, this is an article where an image gallery is appropriate (usually they are not appropriate; see WP:IG and Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Galleries. In my opinion, only one image of the Tower of St. Joseph should be in the article and the fountain images should be in a gallery at the end of the "Fountains section". However, this is my opinion and images policy is not a policy that is required for GA status.
	7. Overall assessment.

I should finish this review within 24 hours. AHeneen (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Great article. There are no issues that prevent promotion to GA, but I did provide some suggestions to improve the article. AHeneen (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)