Talk:Richard Coeur de Lion (statue)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Prioryman, I've completed my review and re-review and find that your article meets GA criteria, but I do have a few comments that should be addressed prior to its passage. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the statue, establishes the necessary context for the statue, and explains why the statue is notable.
The template is beautifully formatted, its contents are cited within the prose and by the references below, and its image is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 and is therefore eligible for inclusion in this article.
Did the German bomb land near the statue during the London Blitz? If so, that should be stated in the lede as it was a notable event.

It did; I've added that info. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Description

I recommend wiki-linking first mentions of Carlo Marochetti, Old Palace Yard, Palace of Westminster, and Richard I in the main prose of the article. Would it be superfluous to mention that the statue is located in the City of Westminster in London?

As far as I know the usual style is not to repeat links that have appeared in the lead; does the manual of style say something different somewhere? Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

History
Creation and display at the Great Exhibition

The image of the original clay statue on display in Hyde Park during The Great Exhibition (1851) is released into the public domain and is therefore eligible for use here.
I recommend linking royalist French government to July Monarchy.

Good idea, done. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Conversion to bronze and dispute over location

The close-up view of the statue is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 so it is free to use here.
"proved a bone of contention" may be too colloquial; would it read better if it were rewritten "proved a contentious issue"

OK, I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the sculpture in Old Palace Yard is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 and is therefore free to use here.
Perhaps add a comma after In 1856 of "In 1856 Marochetti..."

Done. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest de-linking subsequent mentions of Westminster Abbey as it is linked above in the prose.

Done. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.

Installation and subsequent history

The side view of the statue in 2014 is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, therefore it is acceptable for use in this article.
The detail of the bas-relief panel is also licensed CC BY-SA 4.0 and is good to go for use here.
It should be specified that the bombs that damaged the statue were dropped during the London Blitz.

Done. @Caponer: - thanks for taking this on. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This subsection is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this subsection.
- Prioryman, congratulations on another job well done. I've completed my review of this article and thank you for all your hard work on it. I hereby pass it to Good Article status! -- Caponer (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.