Talk:Cooling Castle/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 06:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read through today and start the review proper tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

Made a few minor copy-edits. Don't see any reason to fail GAN in this respect. FactotEm (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, up to scratch. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

None found so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

Yes. There are a few bits that could be expanded for A Class or FAC, but fine at GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Yes. FactotEm (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

Yes FactotEm (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Yes FactotEm (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

"Ordnance Survey map of Cooling Castle" - could usefully be dated (things may have changed since 1964)
"Sir Thomas Wyatt, who seized and destroyed Cooling Castle on 30 January 1554" - is "destroyed" quite the right word...? Hchc2009 (talk)

Status query[edit]

Where does this review stand at the moment. Hchc2009 is the listed reviewer, yet FactotEm has been both editing the article (in the absence of nominator Prioryman, who has not been active on Wikipedia over the past several months) and adding comments as if they are the reviewer. Since Hchc2009 opened the review, they are the reviewer of record and the person responsible for the ultimate decision of passing or failing the nomination, though FactotEm's thoughts (and edits!) are most welcome. Hchc2009, where does the review stand, and what work remains to be done to bring this up to GA level? (If you don't plan on doing a comprehensive review, please let us know that.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Hchc2009's talk to advise him that I got involved, but no answer. He's still the official reviewer as far as I'm concerned, and I think it right to defer to him unless he says otherwise. FactotEm (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]