Talk:Architecture of Fremantle Prison/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Waggers (talk · contribs) 12:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

---

This is a very interesting article on a fascinating subject. I can tell that contributors have researched it carefully. The writing is of a high standard and the prose flows well all the way through the article, which I find to be pleasantly and coherently structured. Very well done on the work done to date.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Regarding word choice, there are a few adjectives sprinkled through the article that struck me as somewhat subjective, and possibly not in keeping with an encylopaedic tone. Examples include "imposing entrance" in the lead, "exceptional heritage significance" in the Description and Walls and gatehouse sections; the walls forming a "vital part of the precinct" and a "handsome lantern range" in the New Division section. (Although if "exceptional heritage significance" is an official/technical term please forgive its inclusion here - I'm not familiar with Australia's heritage classifications/designations).

There was one tiny glitch in the Tunnels section regarding the oil leak - I've taken the liberty of correcting that myself.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   There are no inline citations in the lead, which I found a little off-putting when I first opened the article. That said, all the facts mentioned in the lead are repeated later in the article (complete with proper references) and since this is not a controversial subject, it does still fully comply with WP:LEADCITE so no action needs to be taken on that point.

Some of the words and phrases used in the article are of course direct copies from the Australian Heritage Database, as indicated in the Attribution section. I was worried for a moment when I noticed the similarity of turn of phrase, but again, there's actually no problem. I notice that some of the word choice issues I mention above actually stem from the AHD text.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is perfectly balanced, covering everything it should and staying focussed on the subject throughout.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Considering the wealth of images available I'm impressed at the restraint of editors here to pick sufficient a sufficient number to illustrate the article without overburdening it. I think I tend to be too liberal with adding images to articles, so well done!

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I've only been able to find one minor fault, and even that is debatable (is anyone seriously going to suggest the entrance isn't imposing, the walls aren't a vital part, the lantern range isn't handsome or the heritage significance isn't exceptional?). While I'd like to see that addressed I don't think it's important enough to delay or decline the nomination process any further. This is a Good Article.