Talk:Dupont Circle Fountain/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
AgnosticPreachersKid, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article! APK whisper in my ear 04:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
AgnosticPreachersKid, I have completed my review of the article, and while it looks like it meets the majority of criteria for passage to Good Article status, I do have some comments and questions that need to be addressed first. Great job on this one, as always! -- Caponer (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Lede
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede summarizes content from the three subsections of the "History" section and the "Design and location" section.
- I would actually expound a bit more in the final sentence of the lede but reiterating that the fountain and surrounding park are owned and maintained by the National Park Service, a federal agency of the Interior Department.
- This section is well-written and all content is verifiable and internally sourced below in the prose.
- Done APK whisper in my ear 04:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
History Background
- First use of Dupont Circle in the prose should be wiki-linked.
- I suggest adding a sentence highlighting the notability of Du Pont's American Civil War contributions. Was Congress honoring him for a specific act during the war?
- Is there an inline citation for the final sentence of the second paragraph of the Background subsection?
- This subsection is well-written and all content is verifiable and internally sourced within the prose.
- Done APK whisper in my ear 04:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Dedication
- This subsection is well-written and all content is verifiable and internally sourced within the prose. I have no further comments, questions, or suggestions.
Later history
- Should the sentence read "It is one of the few Civil War monuments that is a not an equestrian sculpture." with the addition of few?
- This subsection is well-written and all content is verifiable and internally sourced within the prose.
- Done APK whisper in my ear 04:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Design and location
- De-link Dupont Circle as its first usage should be linked further above in the prose.
- For the geographical description of the fountain's surroundings, I would utilize the following USGS topo map citation to cover your bases:
- Washington West Quadrangle, District of Columbia–Maryland–Virginia (Map). 1 : 24,000. 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States Geological Survey. 2011. OCLC 777027791.
- I would have the surroundings paragraph stand on its own, then move the physical description of the design down to a second paragraph in this section.
- Done Thanks for the citation. APK whisper in my ear 05:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- AgnosticPreachersKid, everything looks good to go. Thank you for addressing each of my above comments and suggestions in such a timely manner! The article is a phenomenal portrayal of this D.C. landmark's history and design, and it is a privilege for me to pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations! -- Caponer (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)