Talk:Gallox Bridge, Dunster/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll have this one to you within a day ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Initial comments[edit]
- "The bridge is in the guardianship of English Heritage" - this is mentioned in the lead but not anywhere else in the article
- "below 'the castle at a point" - would be better linked fully as Dunster Castle
- The lead could be expanded slightly in order to summarise the article and comply per WP:LEAD. A little bit more can be mentioned about the bridge's history I think, for example "It was important for the transport of wool and other goods to market" could be expanded a little into how it dates back to 1222 and when the bridge was built etc
- The Architecture section is a little short to pass the GA criteria, can it at all be expanded? By a sentence or two?
References[edit]
- Ref 4 is dead
- The external link is dead too
On hold[edit]
This is a well researched article and a compact one too. It is well written but I feel that it does not meet the comprehensivness part of the crtiera at this time, so I'll put this on hold until all of the above can be addressed. Thanks! ☠ JAGUAR ☠ 12:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Close - promoted[edit]
Thank you for taking the time to make improvements to this article, I think the architecture should be fine as I see the rest of the article is well researched and well written, so I think this passes the GA criteria. Well done on the extra work, looks like another Somerset GA! ☩JAGUAR ☩ 17:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)