Talk:Trafalgar Square/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 17:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:
Black Monday link is for all practical purposes a dab that does not specifically list anything about what 8 February 1886 means in the UK. It's in 2 places: in the lead, and under political demonstrations.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
Citations 37 and 40 are not formatted correctly

Citation 41 points only to the main page for MSN travel

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
I did the best I could to check this. Both Duplication Detector and Earwig's tool have intermittently ceased functioning to the point I only got about half the citations checked with those tools. Anything else was spot checking. But I think we're OK on this. AGF on sourcing that is offline.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Nominator has been the primary editor since early December.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I apologise in advance that this has been a bit of a rush job, hence a bunch of silly copyedits I (and, presumably you) have needed to do this afternoon. Did you fix the interglacial deposits source - it works correctly for me here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Well, I've gone through this and see only what is listed above - the links to Black Monday, and the citations that need to be taken care of. Other than that, this looks pretty good. Actually, Trafalgar Square Christmas tree has pretty special meaning, doesn't it? Nice idea about putting that in a DYK hook. — Maile (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: re the interglacial deposits source worked for me also. It wasn't the link I was talking about. You needed to format the citation so it said it was Jstor, and that a subscription is required. Yes, I took care of that for you. — Maile (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: Okay, I've fixed the other issues - I took Black Monday out of the lead, and unlinked it in the body. For the TNA references, I fixed the link; for the statues, I resourced them to the London Encyclopedia. I seem to recall cross-checking that book against the article, which is why I probably didn't pick up on the reference. Regarding the link checker, if you scroll through the recent history you'll see me suddenly put a bunch of ^{[dead link‍]} tags in the article, and you can probably guess what I did ;-) Is there anything else I've missed, or is that it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: This passes. Go forth and make good DYK hooks. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Maile, I can't remember if I had a QPQ stockpiled, but I will set up a DYK forthwith Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.