Talk:Princely Abbey of Stavelot-Malmedy/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting GA review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems found when checking against quick fail criteria, starting substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
I made some minor copy-edits.
b (MoS):
~~Picture galleries such as that at the bottom are deprecated.~~
Looking at MOS:IMAGES and WP:IG suggests that the use of the gallery in the Art section is encouraged — three images put there as thumbnails would be too long for the section. Can I persuade you to change your mind on that point? :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I take your point. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider using the {{Multiple image}} template rather than a gallery - it allows you to group the thumbnails, while still allowing you to integrate the images and text. See, for example, Vincent van Gogh. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't grouping the thumbnails, the problem is that there are three images that want to be in that section, but the section isn't very long, so integrating the images and text isn't really possible, simply because the images would overflow the text; {{Multiple image}} wouldn't solve that problem. I'd maintain the use in this article is precisely the kind of situation where MOS:IMAGES and WP:IG encourage the use of an image gallery. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 16:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
No dead links.
b (citations to reliable sources):
Ref #1 [1] is to French Wikipedia, which is not allowed; likewise ref #4 [2], Eupedia; likwise ref #11 [3], English Wikipedia; ref #14 [4], French Wikipedia; ref #21 [5] French Wikipedia; ref #27[6] French Wikipedia; ref #35 [7] English wikipedia; ref #36 [8] is a personal page, WP:SPS; ref #37 [9] is a personal page. Done
Thank you; that's an even more useful list than the one I was using; there are some sources there I didn't realise weren't allowed. Thanks! :o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wikipedia or any other wikis are not RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The final circular references have been removed. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
~~Consider re-using the picture gallery images within the text.~~
See comment above. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
~~Some issues above which need fixing. On Hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)~~ OK, all fixed noe - I removed the reference to Fr Wiki in ref#2 as this is unneccessary, we can assume good faith. Happy to promote to GA status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at the references; I'll continue to do so. Thanks for the input! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]