Talk:Harlech Castle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Make sure that all locations have the US state or UK as appropriate.

They should all have the national location now; the article format doesn't use US states. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's an FAC thing, but those reviewers always want the US state spelled out. But it's not really a criteria at this level.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Has any significant restoration work been done since the Office of Works did its bit?

I can't find any specific reference to it having been done or not done; my guess is that there's been the usual annual repairs, but nothing as big as the Works effort. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

2. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

3. 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 where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Nice job; just a few niggles to clean up. Hadn't noticed that sandstone was used as the building material. Rather surprised as most of the sandstone that I've seen is pretty friable after exposure to weather.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

NB: its a funny sort of sandstone - it looks really quite hard and I didn't recognise it as such when I first saw it. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I figured as much, otherwise they wouldn't have used it as a building material. Perhaps it had a bit more clay/mud in the mix when it solidified than just sand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)