Talk:Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 11:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this one using the table below, comments to follow soon! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 11:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Generalissima, my initial review is complete. I've left some comments below to address, but overall a really good article which won't take much tweaking to get to GA. Do let me know if you'd like any clarification on anything :) Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Unexpectedlydian: I made some changes to the article based off your feedback. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Generalissima, thanks for the quick response! Looks really good now, happy to promote to GA :) Well done! Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 10:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Unexpectedlydian: I made some changes to the article based off your feedback. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (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. |
General comments
Lead
Background and creation
History
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Lead section
Layout Words to watch
Fiction
List incorporation
|
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. |
Sources cited correctly and in an appropriate layout.
|
![]() |
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). |
Source check I have checked the most-cited sources and a selection of others. Stocker 2016a (1) (21) The Wellington Statue, 7 February 1901
Leader, 8 February 1901
Queen Victoria Monument, 2023
Wellington's Welcome, 8 June 1910
The Varnished Statue: Engineer's Explanation, 5 August 1925
Council and Heritage building rainbows, 14 July 2022
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. |
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
Copyvio detector brings up nothing of concern (35.5% similarly to Stocker article mainly highlights simple phrasing and quotes). Source spot-checks did not bring up anything of concern.
|
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. |
|
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
|
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |