Talk:Knife Edge Two Piece 1962–65/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

With a few minor grammatical tweaks, and a fulfilled request of intro expansion, the article now complies with policies on style, structure, and context. If I had to guess... (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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

Verifiable with no original research:

The article is well-referenced with use of plenty of reputable third-party sources. No sign of original research. If I had to guess... (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article looks to cover all aspects of its topic for which relevant encyclopedic material was available, and does not look to drift into trivia anywhere. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article discusses its topic in a non-biased tone throughout. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The most recent revisions in the article's history shows that it has not been the subject of any edit warring since at least February 2013. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The article is decently illustrated, and all files comply with fair use laws. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

• Under the heading "Westminster cast", the text begins: "The most conspicuous cast of Knife Edge Two Piece". It may not be necessary, but I just have a gut feeling a statement like "The most conspicuous" should be immediately followed by an inline citation. I read over the source used to verify this paragraph, and it did not specifically refer to the casting in this way. Is it referred to like that in one of the others, by chance? If I had to guess... (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Westminster cast is often featured in outside broadcasts from Parliament, but as it is uncited I have removed it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Granted the article is relatively small, but in keeping with MoS policies on the intro to an article, I just feel like there could be a smidge more to the intro than there currently is. Maybe a sentence on the restoration of the sculpture, a prominent section at the end, and that would suffice. Other than these two points, I think the article's ready to go. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've expanded the intro. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! If I had to guess... (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am now confident the article satisfies GA criteria. Congratulations! :) If I had to guess... (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)