Talk:St Andrew's Castle, Hamble/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 09:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Overall a pretty solid piece of work on a pretty minor fortification. Just a few small issues that I can see:

• In the first paragraph you repeat "modest" twice in two sentences, could one of these been changed to avoid the repetition?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• "25 metres (82 ft)-wide moat" I think that using {{convert|25|m|adj=mid|-wide}} or {{convert|25|m|adj=on}} would work better, creating "25-metre-wide (82 ft) moat" or "25-metre (82 ft) wide moat".

It seems to need to be {{convert|25|m|ft|adj=mid|-wide}} to work, and I've amended accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• "..has been heavily effected by.." Should be "affected" not "effected".

• Good catch! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• "..by coastal erosion - the local.." The hyphen should probably be an emdash to match the one a little later in the sentence.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Journals (Kenyon and Walton) should still have ISSN or ISBN numbers to use.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• In the references, is the Walton source from Osiris (journal)? If so, it would be useful to wikilink it. Harrias ^talk 09:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Should all be done now - thanks Harrias! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article is well-written and complies the the relevant MOS guidelines.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is well-referenced and there is no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Despite being a short article, it appears the cover the subject suitably.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No neutrality issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No stability issues.

6. 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):

   Images illustrate the article well and are appropriately licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice work! Harrias ^talk 07:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)