Talk:Birnbeck Pier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 10:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points of concern so far:

Removed addressed points as per Rod's request. Will conduct a formal review with a template shortly. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Do you think we should expand the acronym for RNLI? Do you mean in the picture caption as the first use within the main text has Royal National Lifeboat Institution before the abbreviation.— Rod ^talk 13:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Bit concerned about this sentence, could you have a go at a rewrite? For a different issue than last time. is this notable enough for mention? Happy to hear your opinion if you want to keep it. This cost £70,000 but can be removed once permanent facilities can be provided again and then reused elsewhere.[51] Having done a quick web search it appears that this is a new strategy/design by the RNLI & have not used boathouses which can be reused on another site before - so therefore i think it is a significant development & should stay.— Rod ^talk 13:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass! Retrolord (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]