Talk:Växjö Cathedral/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks a very interesting article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Review

The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable and 91.8% of authorship is one user, Yakikaki. It is currently ranked a B class article and is almost a Good Article..

• The image of the statue of Saint Sigfrid by Peter Lind is listed as public domain but also notes that "reusing or linking to this file can have legal consequences." I therefore suggest removing it unless this can be resolved.

• I have removed the picture, I didn't see the tag before – thanks for pointing it out!

• The article follows MOS:IMAGE. However, multiple images are used in close proximity so there is a risk of MOS:SANDWICH. This may be resolved by removing the image of the statue.

• Indeed, it's a bit less cramped now.

• Please check that abbreviations are in compliance with MOS:MISCSHORT.

• I couldn't find any problems about this, was there anything in particular you were thinking of?

• The article has a good range of references, mainly from sources in Swedish. The cathedral is mentioned in Yates' Liturgical Space: Christian Worship and Church Buildings in Western Europe 1500-2000. Is there anything useful here?

• I don't have access to this book, but managed to get a glimpse through innovative use of search terms. It seems that the cathedral is indeed mentioned in the book, but mainly in passing in the passages I could find. I honesly doubt that there would be much in there that isn't already in especially the monography on the cathedral by Gustafsson & Ullén.

• @Yakikaki: Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. simongraham (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Simongraham: Hello! Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this article, and for the points above. I have tried to address them all, so far. Let me know what you think. Yakikaki (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Yakikaki: Great work. I think that is everything. simongraham (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

   it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

4. It has a neutral point of view

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

7. Overall:

   Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

   Pass/Fail: -- simongraham (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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.