Jump to content

Talk:Statue of Robert Falcon Scott, Christchurch/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 11:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: APK (talk · contribs) 05:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this one. If you have concerns about my suggestions, please feel free to let me know. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    in the Christchurch Central City, New Zealand I think "the" can be removed. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    Comma after "widow" in the lede. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    Link Antarctic in the lede and first mention in the background section. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    and came ashore in British Empire Is this necessary? APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    minus Removed - A
    No need to capitalize "Statue" in the description section. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    depicting Captain Robert Falcon Scott I think you can just say Scott. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    Remove link to granite in second mention in the description section. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    Comma after Italy. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    Englishmen is linked in the article, but not the lede. I would recommend linking both or neither. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    toppled off its plinth You can remove the link to plinth since it's linked earlier. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    "strengthening" not "strengthened" APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC
     Done
    Restoration was completed 2017, the statue was unveiled a second time in a ceremony in its original location on 6 October. I would readd some of the previous wording (because it reads as two sentences) or add a semicolon after 2017. "After restoration was completed in 2017,..." or "Restoration was completed 2017; the statue..." APK hi :-) (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is better. I've added the semicolon.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Layout and MoS looks good. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    No issues. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Spot check:
    #2
    #6 - "The statue portrays Scott in polar dress and facing north on the homeward journey when death overtook him and his companions. Again a plaque bears the names of the five men who died and includes a paragraph from Scott's farewell message." Maybe you can add some of these details, like Scott facing north and the plaque info. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done
    #8
    #11
    #15
    #19 - I don't see where this short news item or ref #16 is related to The statue was finished in April 1916, but was not shipped until October of that year due to the war.. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Misplaced ref. I've since corrected it.
    #24 - This article doesn't mention anything about the statue. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    minus Removed. It appears that was there before I edited.
    C. It contains no original research:
    No issues. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No issues found. Earwig only shows a few common words and the quote. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I think some of the other inscriptions should be included. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I've added the 1917 original inscription. I haven't gotten any source for the Kathleen Scott plaque, but it could always be added if needed.
    Mentioning Arthur Foljambe's speech and a few other details of the dedication would be good. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    Was there a dedication service when it was reinstalled or just a routine installation? APK hi :-) (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: It was a ceremony with a group of locals there are the time. It was unveiled by Lianne Dalziel and the descendants of Scott.
    Do you think a mention of the statue being vandalized would be a good idea? APK hi :-) (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    No issues. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No issues. APK hi :-) (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No edit war or content disputes. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Images are properly licensed. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Please add alt captions to the images. APK hi :-) (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done - A
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Great work, @Alexeyevitch: Passing. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! :-). Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Statue_of_Robert_Falcon_Scott,_Christchurch/GA1&oldid=1259447950"