Talk:Royal Artillery Memorial/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Harrison49 (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The article maintains a good style and layout throughout.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
~~Need a reference for the last sentence of the first paragraph in the Design and symbolism section.~~
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The article covers the major aspects.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The article maintains a neutral point of view.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
The article does not appear to be subject to any edit warring.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Images are well placed and used effectively.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
It was especially interesting to read about the initial critical reception of the memorial. Harrison49 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference added in. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.