Talk:Cassel, Nord/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
I think the "Sights and cultures" list should be converted to prose. It's almost prose already, just needs some adjusting.Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adjusting this section. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No edit wars found. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Several of the images are lacking the US public domain tag. Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to "Images" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
NIcely-done. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Finishing up this Review is On hold pending the US public domain tags issues in the "Images" section below. Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been adjusted to my satisfaction & according to the GA Criteria. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comments

I would convert the Sights and culture section to prose. The embedded list is awkward and unnecessary (WP:PROSE). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done this now. Prioryman (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read-throughs

I will be doing a few more deep read-throughs to see if there's anything I missed but - other than converting the one section from List to Prose - so far I haven't really found found much of any great concern. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The following 3 images lack the US public-domain tag and must be updated with that information before I can finish this GA Review:

Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Prioryman: Have you had a chance to finish up the public-domain tags for these 3 images? Shearonink (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, all done now - thanks. Prioryman (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]