Talk:Fort Belvedere, Surrey/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:22, 11 January 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:
Really well-done. Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Follows all the MOS parameters so far as I can tell. Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 11 January 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:
The references should be placed within two columns for visual clarity and readability. Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Looks good, but still checking. Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problems found. Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool and no problems found. Good job. Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 11 January 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:
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:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Is there a reason why an image of Edward, Prince of Wales/King Edward VIII was not included? It would seem that much of the structure's notability is because it is the scene of his actual abdication. Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Photo was added by nominator. Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
At this time the only improvements I would like to see going forward would be to put the references into two columns so they don't stretch down the page so far and to consider placing one or two of the images on the left side so the text would be broken up a little bit and the right-side of the "page" would't be so visually heavy. Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Occasionally one comes across an article that is nicely-written, well-sourced and a delight to read. I know there are probably improvements that could be done to this article but other than an image of the King, I am somewhat hard-pressed to think of much of anything in that regard. I especially like the explanations of the various leases - I have a much-better understanding of this type of "ownership".Shearonink (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.