Talk:1864 Washington Arsenal explosion/GA2

Latest comment: 24 days ago by BigChrisKenney in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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: APK (talk · contribs) 09:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: BigChrisKenney (talk · contribs) 00:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply


Hello! I am going to review this article as part of the October 2024 GA Drive. I look forward to working with you. Let's get this article to GA status!

Thanks for taking the time to review and copyedit! APK hi :-) (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Initial Review

edit

Intro

edit

My biggest concern for the intro is how long it is. Consider shortening.

  Done APK hi :-) (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

History

edit

Background

edit

Good.

Explosion

edit

"Bricks and other debris flew into all directions."

  • This sentence is not in the source. Cite or remove.

"...including send who were blinded."

  • This word doesn't make sense here.
  Done APK hi :-) (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aftermath

edit

Good.

Monument

edit

Good.

Later History

edit

Good.

See Also

edit

Why is the Allegheny Arsenal explosion listed here?

References

edit

I find them all acceptable and relevant.

I have made edits throughout the article that you may choose to review.


Final Assessment
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

BigChrisKenney (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2024 (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.