Talk:Scottish art in the nineteenth century/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No copyvios, and the previous GA review addressed all of the issues with the prose.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This source does not support the following sentence it is attached to - "It became the Government School of Art in 1858." Citation 15 is a dead link. The book sources I'm accepting AGF. Because of the error I found above with a citation not supporting the sentence it's attached to, I'd encourage you to double-check the article's references. No original research is present.

   Y Resolved.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad in its coverage, yet does not stray into extraneous material irrelevant to the article subject.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias detected.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable, mostly single-author article.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Licensing checks out, there was one image that lacked a US-specific permission tag, but I corrected that (sometime I need to spend a few days on commons and deal with this issue. It keeps showing up on these GA reviews.) Like the previous review indicated, it would be very beneficial to the article to have Principal Lee depicted, but the lack of that image will not keep this article from GA status

7. Overall: Almost there, just a couple citation difficulties that I highlighted above.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

   Y Citation issues resolved, article is good to go.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

Hi. Thanks for taking this on. Its probably evident from the history, but this article was reviewed before. Despite the time out on the hold caused by Legbot having a bad weekend, the reviewer agreed to pass the article if it was completed, which it was, but he did not get back to it. It doesn't really have any impact on this review, but I thought I would clarify.--SabreBD (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that review. I will tackle this article shortly, either tonight or tomorrow. The previous review does have an impact, as I can check the current article against the issues that the previous review found. Hopefully, this article will pass muster. I enjoy working on these articles with you, by the way, Sabrebd.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 3family6, look forward to it.--SabreBD (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the two citation problems. One caused by borrowing text from elsewhere I think. I cannot remember what the problem was with putting up Principle Leah, so I will have to recheck that one. I have a feeling I did find a version of this that could be used.--SabreBD (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The citation issues are resolved, so I can move this article forward. The lack of a depiction of Principal Lee does not affect the GA status at all, so feel free to take your time on that. Approved.--¿3family6 _contribs 04:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks 3family6 (and to Erachima for the previous work). I will take a look at Principal Lee when I get some time. All the best.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)