Talk:Caerphilly Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   • I made a couple of small tweaks - please check to make sure I didn't screw anything up :)
   • Dab link to Hugh le Despenser. I fixed a few other dabs; please check to make sure I chose the right links.
   • 14-17th centuries, "there is no evidence of a slighting having been ordered." What is a slighting?

• Clarified. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. • Is there any information on how many tourists tour the castle annually?

• Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • In the notes you have links to Davies 1981 and 1995, but in the references you give Davies 1981 and 1990.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am passing the GAN. There are a few comments above, regarding prose and one references niggle, but these are not enough to get in the way of GA status. Very nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)