Jump to content

Talk:Peter II (cat)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articlePeter II (cat) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 23, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite Peter and Peter III serving for 17 years each, Peter II's tenure only lasted six months?

GA Review

[edit]

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter II (cat)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 14:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First assessment

[edit]

First assessment forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment completed. This passes. If an image of Peter II ever becomes available or a free use photograph of the Cenotaph from the mid-1940s is available, I would change out the current image for either of those, but I'm not going to hold up the GA for a search for images. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    Looks good after copy edit.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Looks good after copy edit.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    Has a reference section. Although archive links are not necessary to meet GA criteria, it is best practice to include archive URLs.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    Checked all sources except for the book cited, for which I will AGF.
    c. (OR):
    No synth.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Used Earwig's tool.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    As the nominator noted, Peter II was short-lived and I couldn't turn up any additional sources via a search of TWL.
    b. (focused):
    Per 3a, the article goes into all of the detail it can.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Checked page history and talk page.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    Image copyright is fine.
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Caption edited.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk09:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehall in 1947
Whitehall in 1947

Improved to Good Article status by Tim O'Doherty (talk). Self-nominated at 10:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Peter II (cat); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Tim O'Doherty: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]