Talk:Cape Moreton Light/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Disambiguations: none found
Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Checking against GA criteria[edit]
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- '
'Drawings were made in September 1854, just between the two colonial architects, as Blacket was succeeded by William Weaver only on 1 October 1854. This reads rather clumsily, can you rephrase it?
Done - Otherwise prose is fine, I made a number of minor copyedits.[1]
- '
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- references check out and appear to be reliable, no OR found.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- broad and focussed.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Sufficient detail and focus.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No evidence of edit warring.
- 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):
- images are licensed and captioned appropriately
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Just one minor point of clarification on the prose. on hold for seven days for this to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)- OK, thanks for your quick response. I am happy to list this now. Congratulations Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- I think I clarified the text, but let me share a small dilemma and get your thoughts. If you look at the drawings, File:Cape Moreton Lighthouse, 1854.jpg, you will see that they are not signed by the architect as customary, but by Alexander Beazeley, Foreman of Works in the Colonial Architect's office. I was wondering why, and then I realized the timing would put the signing in a period of vacancy. The "historical truth" here would be to write "and drawings for the tower were completed during that vacancy period, in September 1854, and signed by Alexander Beazeley, Foreman of Works in the Colonial Architect's office". But I can't find a source for that, other than the simple fact that he is the signatory. So is this OR, Or can File:Cape Moreton Lighthouse, 1854.jpg be used as the source for that? --Muhandes (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well I think that could cite that to the document itself with its url at the national archives. I would omit the "during that vacancy period" as that would be OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done --Muhandes (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that ticks the box, well done. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well I think that could cite that to the document itself with its url at the national archives. I would omit the "during that vacancy period" as that would be OR. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
