Jump to content

Talk:James A. Garfield Monument/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: APK (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: MallardTV (talk · contribs) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

The article is incredibly well written in all aspects, however I find the Biography section to almost be too long and stray away from the purpose of the article, perhaps a link to the main article for his bio would be useful.

  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):

It is well cited to reliable sources. However, it could benefit from some additional ones.

  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:

The article stays on topics for the most part and is neutral and unbiased. The one thing is as I mentioned earlier the bio section.

  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

The images are certainly useful and I feel there are plenty.

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Overall, I feel this meets all the criteria for a good article!

· · ·
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_A._Garfield_Monument/GA1&oldid=1241703817"