Talk:Mountain Fountain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I can review this. I'm relatively busy in real life, so it might take me a couple weeks. Cessaune [talk] 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cessaune, I'd just like to remind you as you may have forgot. It has been almost 3 months :) —Panamitsu (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Panamitsu, thank you for your exceptional patience. I'll be done by Saturday, 12:00 UTC. Cessaune [talk] 15:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Muchness, here we go.

1. Well-written: Y
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct Y
      • I could choose to be nitpicky here, and honestly, I had written an entire paragraph, but the wording is GA-quality. There's nothing worth changing. It's already good.
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation Y
2. Verifiable with no original research: Y
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline Y
   2. 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) Y
      • I went ahead and checked the sources. It's all good. I'm just going to assume good faith and presume that the physical sources are all good, considering the quality of the digital ones.
   3. it contains no original research Y
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism Y
3. Broad in its coverage: Y
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic Y
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Y
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each Y
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content Y
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions Y

I'd like to write more, but the honest truth is that there aren't many issues. It's already good, but now it's good (). Thanks for your patience, and for the exceptional quality of the article. It really is a cool sculpture.

Are you going to submit a DYK nom? If not, I'd like to. Cessaune [talk] 03:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)