Talk:Statue of Winston Churchill (Washington, D.C.)

Latest comment: 8 months ago by Bruxton in topic GA Review

Possible sources

edit



  • Goode, James M., The Outdoor Sculpture of Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1974, pp 307



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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Statue of Winston Churchill (Washington, D.C.)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 22:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


Questions

edit
? Maybe we should have a WP:HAT, or a see also with these?   Done
? "and his other foot" should probably just be "the other foot"   Done
? "Special Relationship between the U.S. and U.K" U.K. needs a determiner, suggest "the"   Done
? "There were eight sculptors who submitted designs" should probably be "eight sculptors submitted designs"   Done
? "Cleveland Institute of Art in order to teach" should reduce "in order to" to just "to"   Done
? "Before Churchill had died in 1965" should remove the word "had"   Done
? for 9-feet (2.7 m) tall, resting on a granite pedestal that is 1.5-feet (0.5 m) tall. Please use conversion templates like 9 ft (2.7 m) and 1.5 ft (0.46 m)   Done
? "created a 5-inch (12.7 cm) soft clay model for his design" use a conversion template 5 in (13 cm)   Done

Citations

edit

Chart

edit
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
  1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Yes
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
  2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Yes
  2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Yes
  2c. it contains no original research. Yes
  2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Yes
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes
  7. Overall assessment. Good work. It is a pleasure to review your articles.
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.