Talk:Samuel Hahnemann Monument/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: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AgnosticPreachersKid, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review! APK whisper in my ear 21:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

AgnosticPreachersKid, as always thank you for all your tremendous work on this article. I've completed my review and re-review and find that your article meets GA criteria, but I do have a few comments that should be addressed prior to its passage. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the monument, establishes the necessary context for the monument, and explains why the monument is notable.
The template is beautifully formatted, its contents are cited within the prose and by the references below, and its image is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and therefore eligible for inclusion in this article.
The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

History

Should Materia Medica Para be italicized, too?
The image of sculptor Charles Henry Niehaus in 1896 is releasable to the public domain and is therefore fit for inclusion here.
The image of the monument dedication in 1900 is also released to the public domain and is alright to use here.
The second paragraph of the "Dedication" subsection needs inline citations.
This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Design and location

The image of the Hahnemann statue is licensed CC BY 2.0 and therefore acceptable for use here in this article.
This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Done APK whisper in my ear 01:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AgnosticPreachersKid, I've reviewed the article following your additions and find that it is ready to proceed to Good Article status! As always, you've done a phenomenal job, sir. -- Caponer (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2015 (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.