Talk:Burnside Fountain/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. There's one link on the link checker that shows up dead, but I don't think it really is. Seems to show up fine. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for planning to review this article. That ref is not dead, but the same thing happens to me in linkcheck... not sure why.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed a rather major edit of the first paragraph. I'm trying to make it more concise. What do you think?
"Turtle Boy has become an unofficial mascot for Worcester, much in the same way the Manneken Pis is for Brussels." Is there a citation somewhere for this?
Also, it's a work of public art, isn't it? (one of the sources mentions this)
Do you mind if I go through and copy edit it? Your sources are good.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph looks great now. There is a ref for the Manneken Pis statement in the "Turtle Boy" section. It is ref #3. Please copy edit this article to your hearts content. Copy editing is not my strong suit at all, I'm more of a researcher.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, great! Please check that I don't misrepresent. I've looked at your sources and everything I've looked at support the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only made a couple more edits, mostly moving a paragraph into the last section, and fixing some formating issues. Altogether my edits are the following:[1] What do you think? (I check your citations and they're all sound.) I think it's ready to pass. An interesting, well sourced article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that paragraph used to be in the turtle boy section, but i moved it to the description becasue i wasnt shure where it best fit. It reads fine there. thanks for the edits and review!--Found5dollar (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

c. no original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pass

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]