Talk:Wellington Monument, Somerset/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take this review. I mainly focus on prose/copyediting issues and will leave some initial comments within 24 hours. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

The lead summarises the article well and also gets straight to the point, complying with WP:LEAD and meeting the GA criteria.
Just a suggestion, could you mention in the lead that 'as of 2014' (etc) the monument is still undergoing renovations?

Done

Construction

"In 1890, when four guns were requested for the monument as part of a restoration project, they were found to be naval cannons cast in Scotland in 1789, and never used at the Battle of Waterloo" - how about they were found to be naval cannons cast in Scotland dating from 1789?

Revised

National Trust ownership

At the moment this section feels rather disconnected from most of the article as this section is only made up of a few sentences. Is there any chance for at least a small expansion so that this section would keep the flow of the rest of the article's prose?

There isn't really much to add so I have combined this section with the restoration section below.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

Are there any recent developments on the restoration (a chance for a small expansion if possible)?

See above - a little bit added re installation of movement sensors.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref #6 [1] is broken, but is this just me?
Ref #7 [2] appears to be dead
Besides from these broken references they are reliable and the citations are in the correct places, meeting the GA criteria (however these two need to be fixed!)

Deadlinks fixed/replaced.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This article shows potential of having GA status, the only things that stands in its way are a couple of minor copyediting issues, some dead references and a possible small expansion of the second half of the article. The lead summarises the article well and the article is also comprehensive, so I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once improvements have been made this article should have little problems passing the GAN.

Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to address the issues, but can't find much else on the restoration so I have combined the NT ownership & restoration sections.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing them so quickly. The article has now definitely improved - the prose flows better and there are no outstanding copyediting issues, the references and citations are also in good standing. This article now meets the GA criteria, looks like another Somerset GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]