Talk:Taylor–Burton Diamond/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CheCheDaWaff (talk · contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article and expect to be done tonight. --♫CheChe♫ talk 17:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary

In my opinion this article has very few outstanding issues. If the technical issue is resolved and the prose in the 'Purchase by Burton and Taylor' section slightly refactored, I'm confident this article would qualify for good article status.

Breakdown

• Writing

1. The prose could be clearer in places. Although mostly very good, I feel some of the longer quotations might to better if they were presented 'out-of-line'. In particular I found the long quote from Burton in 'Purchase by Burton and Taylor' section difficult to read because it was so long. It was hard to tell which parts of the paragraph were quotes and which weren't. Consider using the quote template, or something similar. It would probably be a good idea to consider doing this for other long quotes in the article.
2. Complies with manual of style on:
1. ✓ Lead section.
2. ✓ Layout.
3. ✓ Words to watch.
4. (N/A) Fiction.
5. ✓ List incorporation.

• Verifiability & Original Research

1. ✓ All references presented in appropriate layout.
2. ✓ Sources are reliable.
3. ✓ Likely-to-be-challenged information is cited.
4. ✓ No original research.
5. ✓ No copyright violations / plagiarism.

• Topic Coverage

1. ✓ Addresses main aspects of topic.
2. ✓ Stays focused.

• Neutral point of view ✓
• Stable ✓
• Illustrations

1. Images present if possible. Some image of the diamond would be nice, but it's non-essential.
2. (N/A) Correct copyright tags.
3. (N/A) Images relevant.
4. (N/A) Captions appropriate.

• Previous review issues adequately addressed (if applicable) ✓

• Technical issues. There is an apparent technical issue in '1969 sale' paragraph. 2016 price is listed as 'NaN'

--♫CheChe♫ talk 18:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for such a through review. I've made the suggested changes, regretfully removing the inflation calculation as it may not be appropriate (according to the inflation template page) and isolating the large quotes. Thank you once again. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, that's all that was needed. I hereby approve this article for GA status. Well done! --♫CheChe♫ talk 14:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)