Talk:Arbroath/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GAreview.Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

Quite a reasonable article. It should make GA.Pyrotec (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Review

Because of the size of the article, this review will be carried out in stages. The article is going to make GA, but there are a few minor problems to be resolved first:

• Toponymy: a source/citation is needed for the various translations of 'Aber'.
• Is it "Treaty of Salsibury" or "Treaty of Salisbury"?
• The web link in reference 12 is broken.
• Medieval History - the first paragraph is unreferenced, i.e. non-compliant with WP:Cite
• The first half of the final para, i.e. Declaration of Arbroath, is unreferenced.
• I see POV in the last sentence "stolen in 1950 by Scottish Nats". This is medieval history, so let's say why the stone went to Westminster Abbey, before we start talking about the 1950 "theft" (or move the comment about "theft" to a more relevant section - when did 1950 become Medieval History?).
• Modern history reference needed for "In 1849, the mills in Arbroath employed between 3700 and 5000 people, depending on the size of workforce required on any given day."
• Need a ref for the history of the harbours (possible ref 2 might serve this purpose).
  • Stopping at this point.Pyrotec (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pyrotec, I'll strike these out as I deal with them Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Modern history - the web for current ref 29 is broken.
• Demography need a ref for "Arbroathians, or Reid Lichties" (red light could have other connotations).
• Arbroath Smokies References 72, 73 and 74 appear to be broken.

At this point I've gone through the article in some detail at least twice. There is still a possibility that I've not seen an error(s), but you should have your GA quite soon.Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

GA

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, well-referenced, article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A Good Article

Thanks, and congratulations: A Good Article.Pyrotec (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic... thanks again Pyrotec! Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)