Talk:Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Unexpectedlydian (talk · contribs) 11:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be reviewing this one using the table below, comments to follow soon! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 11:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Generalissima, my initial review is complete. I've left some comments below to address, but overall a really good article which won't take much tweaking to get to GA. Do let me know if you'd like any clarification on anything :) Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 13:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unexpectedlydian: I made some changes to the article based off your feedback. :3 Generalissima (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Generalissima, thanks for the quick response! Looks really good now, happy to promote to GA :) Well done! Unexpectedlydian^♯4 talk^‽ 10:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	General comments ~~Just an opinion, but the Composition section might be better placed after Background and creation, and before History.~~ Lead Copied after Drury's earlier 1903 Portsmouth statue, the monument's plinth additionally features a plaque and three bronze reliefs, designed in the New Sculpture style. Does the word "additionally" here mean "in contrast to Drury's earlier statue"? If so, might be worth specifying. If not, you can probably just get rid of the word "additionally". Initially located at Post Office Square, the statue was relocated in 1911 to between Kent Terrace and Cambridge Terrace within the Mount Victoria neighbourhood of Wellington, New Zealand. This sentence could be clearer by making the location more precise, i.e. "the statue was relocated in 1911 to an area between Kent Terrace..." Background and creation ~~Maybe wikilink Māori?~~ ~~equivalent to £346,496 in 2021 Is this the most up-to-date figure?~~ History ~~Wikilink the first instance of lacquering (currently the second instance is linked).~~ The statue was the site of a lesbian visibility protest on International Women's Day in 1977, due to associations drawn by feminist activists between the statue and remnant Victorian morality and colonisation in New Zealand. This sentence sort of comes out of nowhere as it concludes a paragraph about the upkeep of the statue. It would be better suited in the next paragraph about how public opinion declined over time.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section The lead could contain a bit of info about Queen Victoria's pose (i.e. standing) and what she is holding, but only if info is available and cited elsewhere in the article as well (see section 3a below). Layout Y Words to watch None identified. Fiction N/A List incorporation N/A
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources cited correctly and in an appropriate layout.
	2b. 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).	Source check I have checked the most-cited sources and a selection of others. Stocker 2016a (1) Y (3) Y (4) Y (5) Y (9) Y (10) Y (21) ~~Can't find any reference to "Aberdeen granite" in this source.~~ Y The Wellington Statue, 7 February 1901 ...but noted that a statue that would "do credit to the capital city of the colony" was most important. These quotation marks imply that it was Knox who said this verbatim, but it is a newspaper quote. Perhaps remove the quotation marks, or state that this was reported by the newspaper in order to avoid confusion? Leader, 8 February 1901 Y Queen Victoria Monument, 2023 Y Wellington's Welcome, 8 June 1910 Y The Varnished Statue: Engineer's Explanation, 5 August 1925 Y Council and Heritage building rainbows, 14 July 2022 Y
	2c. it contains no original research.	Key information is all cited. No evidence of original research detected when conducting source spot checks.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio detector brings up nothing of concern (35.5% similarly to Stocker article mainly highlights simple phrasing and quotes). Source spot-checks did not bring up anything of concern.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~Is there any information anywhere about the objects Queen Victoria is holding? If so, include this in both the lead and Composition.~~ Local dignitaries gave speeches for the arrival of Governor Lord Islington at a temporary dais erected near the statue. Is there any more info available regarding what this event was for, and if there was any particular significance to the statue?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Main aspects of the topic are addressed, no unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The information in the article is presented neutrally.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No evidence of edit wars or disruptive editing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images all tagged with copyright status, no non-free images.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images have suitable captions. Add alt text to all images (this is for accessibility purposes).
	7. Overall assessment.