Talk:Chain Reaction (sculpture)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Btphelps (talk · contribs) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review

Looks like it meets the GA criteria and will take a closer look in the next few days. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	There is duplicate information about safety / restoration in those two sections, for example, the safety fence. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	What is the "Other works" section about? Are these other works by the same sculptor, by Conrad, within the city of Santa Monica? Please clarify. Done
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.	Multiple references are using the same name. References are using varying styles. One deadlink. Done
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A separate section on its landmark status is suitable to help amplify the sculpture's notability. Citing the criteria listed here would be useful. Done
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The large map image doesn't contribute materially to the content but visually dominates the last half of the article. Images should be relevant to the content, not distract from it. I suggest it be reduced in size by about half. Not required for GA. Done
	7. Overall assessment.	Yes

Yoshi24517's suggestions:

Can I help with the review? I just want to give a few comments. I agree with User:btphelps on this GAR. I know it is his GAR so I will just try to leave comments. All the external links seem to work fine, and there are no red links (Unless you are planning to write articles for any of the red links that you create, if you create any.) Everything is really detailed, and I really like how it is formatted. However, per WP:MOS, you should try to change the conversions so that they are abbbrievated. Example: Pounds --> lb.

Another thing: I think you should add more lnks to the article. See WP:MOS (links) and WP:Build the web for more information. Make sure they lead to reliable sources.

Overall: I think this article should be promoted to GA status. Thanks for letting me help with this GAR. @Btphelps: I know its your GAR, so these are just comments. Thanks again. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 21:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't showed up, and said anything about the article in 1 week, I wll pass the article. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]