Jump to content

Talk:Montpelier Hill/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

I'm sorry of the apparent lack of progress on this review, I'm not sure where the time went.

I've completed a couple of quick read-throughs of the article and it appears, generally, to be at or about GA-level, so I will not be "quick failing" this nomination.

I'm now doing to carryout a more detailed review, working my way through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point, I will mostly be concentrating on "problems", if any. So if I don't find too many this part of the review will be quite "thin". I hope to have this completed in the next 24 hours or so (perhaps 36 hours, we will see). Pyrotec (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • History -
    • The Hell Fire Club -
  • This subsection looks OK.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Prehistoric monuments , The Stewards House , Killakee (Lord Massy's) Estate , Carthy’s Castle & Orlagh House -
  • These four subsections look OK.

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


A comprehensive, well-rferenced, well-illustrated article

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting and informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]