Talk:Losh, Wilson and Bell

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Losh, Wilson and Bell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Stability review

1. Looked at article edit history going back over one year. No issues there.
2. Inspected article talk page edit history and present version of article talk page. No outstanding problems noticed.

— Cirt (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

NOTE: Please respond, below entire Image review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

1. File:High Level Bridge - Newcastle - circa 1852.jpg = Please format with Commons:Template:Information. Y
2. File:Isaac Lowthian Bell - britischer Industrieller.jpg = missing date field. Y
3. File:Bell Ironworks at Port Clarence Teesside watercolour by John Bell (1814-1886).jpg = Template without parameter, missing parameter in licensing section. Y
4. File:Cornish beam engine, Springhead - geograph.org.uk - 716183.jpg = image checks out okay. Y
5. File:Bell Brothers Ironworks at Port Clarence - Albert Goodwin (1845-1932).jpg = image from Flickr, should have a Flickrreview done at Commons. Y

Please work on addressing these relatively easy issues, above.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

1. High Level - template added
2. Isaac - date field filled
3. Bell Ironworks - param added
4. ---
5. Bell bros Ironworks - tagged as requested, but UK artist died 1932 so image is PD (not sure if bot can spot that, not a normal Flickr situation probably)

Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Chiswick Chap! As for the Flickr image source, you may have to manually actually ask a Flickrreviewer at Wikimedia Commons to have a look themselves at the image page, instead of a bot. I'd suggest leaving neutrally worded requests for help at Commons, at a few centrally located notice pages, such as Help, Village Pump over there, etc. — Cirt (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: This was since reviewed on Commons. Image review completed. Next up, rest of GA Review. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 31, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is good throughout. A bit choppy at times, but that is something that could be addressed in the future through both the peer review process and putting in a request for copy edit at the Guild of Copy Editors.

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects. However, there appear to be several sections that could be expanded upon. Lots of one-sentence-long-paragraphs and other short paragraphs and short subsections. Things that could be drilled down and focused on for expansion before and/or during a Peer Review.

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here, covered in neutral wording and matter of fact tone throughout.

5. Article stability? Passes here, per above review notes.

6. Images?: Passes here, per above review notes.

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— — Cirt (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. I'll do some copy editing for smoothness! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)