Talk:Burnside Fountain/GA1

GA Review

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

1. 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:

2. 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:

3. 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):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass

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