Talk:St Mark's Basilica/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

Hello again, Venicescapes. Hope you are okay. I'll pick this review up and will hopefully have some feedback for you soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker, Thank you. I'm very happy it's you. You were a great help with the Campanile.Venicescapes (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll use this checklist as I go along. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've studied the images and they are excellent. Certainly no problems with usage as far as I can see because I believe all are PD or own work. The article is stable and the layout is fine so I've ticked those above. I've done a quick initial read to get a feel for the article. I need to read it in depth next and consider the main criteria. I won't have time to do that today but I'll hopefully be back in a couple of days at most. All the best for now. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Venicescapes, and sorry for the delay but I'm afraid my footballing interests have taken massive priority over the last several days. I've been reading the article as and when possible and I have to say it is very nearly there. In terms of presentation, writing, NPOV, coverage, etc. I can only say that it's really interesting, informative and well written. I'd just like to spend a bit more time on the sources, if that's okay, though what I've checked so far is fine. Hope to be back again soon. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker, not a problem. Enjoy the article and the football game(s). Let me know if I can clarify anything. Cheers.Venicescapes (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Hello, Venicescapes. The article is comprehensively sourced and there's no denying that it's a good article. (Although I missed the double the that someone else has fixed, ha!) I would recommend that you take this to FAC because it is more than a GA. I realise that process is much more painstaking than GAN but I can't imagine anyone having much to query. So, I'll do the necessary and complete this as a pass. Very well done. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker, this is a great pick-me-up. Thank you for your time and encouragement. I hope to nominate it for FAC very soon. I'll let you know. All the best.Venicescapes (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]