Talk:Groton Monument

Groton Monument has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 24, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Groton Monument article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Military history: Memorials / North America / United States / Early Modern / American Revolution

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military memorials and cemeteries task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	American Revolutionary War task force

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

GA Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Groton Monument/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 01:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

Final commentary: Another interesting article, a pleasure to review. There was a problem with a date reading "July 1st" which I've replaced with "July 1" which was in error according to the Manual of Style. Passed. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 01:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, @Acalycine:. And thanks for catching the error. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic