Talk:Cassel, Nord/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    I think the "Sights and cultures" list should be converted to prose. It's almost prose already, just needs some adjusting.Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adjusting this section. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit wars found. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Several of the images are lacking the US public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to "Images" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    NIcely-done. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Finishing up this Review is On hold pending the US public domain tags issues in the "Images" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything has been adjusted to my satisfaction & according to the GA Criteria. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comments[edit]

I would convert the Sights and culture section to prose. The embedded list is awkward and unnecessary (WP:PROSE). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done this now. Prioryman (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read-throughs[edit]

I will be doing a few more deep read-throughs to see if there's anything I missed but - other than converting the one section from List to Prose - so far I haven't really found found much of any great concern. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The following 3 images lack the US public-domain tag and must be updated with that information before I can finish this GA Review:

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prioryman: Have you had a chance to finish up the public-domain tags for these 3 images? Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all done now - thanks. Prioryman (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]