Talk:Wellington Monument, Somerset

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wellington Monument, Somerset/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take this review. I mainly focus on prose/copyediting issues and will leave some initial comments within 24 hours. Thanks! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:26, 10 July 2014 (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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• The lead summarises the article well and also gets straight to the point, complying with WP:LEAD and meeting the GA criteria.
• Just a suggestion, could you mention in the lead that 'as of 2014' (etc) the monument is still undergoing renovations?

• Done

Construction

• "In 1890, when four guns were requested for the monument as part of a restoration project, they were found to be naval cannons cast in Scotland in 1789, and never used at the Battle of Waterloo" - how about they were found to be naval cannons cast in Scotland dating from 1789?

• Revised

National Trust ownership

At the moment this section feels rather disconnected from most of the article as this section is only made up of a few sentences. Is there any chance for at least a small expansion so that this section would keep the flow of the rest of the article's prose?

• There isn't really much to add so I have combined this section with the restoration section below.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Restoration

• Are there any recent developments on the restoration (a chance for a small expansion if possible)?

• See above - a little bit added re installation of movement sensors.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

References

• Ref #6 [1] is broken, but is this just me?
• Ref #7 [2] appears to be dead
• Besides from these broken references they are reliable and the citations are in the correct places, meeting the GA criteria (however these two need to be fixed!)

• Deadlinks fixed/replaced.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

On hold

This article shows potential of having GA status, the only things that stands in its way are a couple of minor copyediting issues, some dead references and a possible small expansion of the second half of the article. The lead summarises the article well and the article is also comprehensive, so I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once improvements have been made this article should have little problems passing the GAN.

• Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to address the issues, but can't find much else on the restoration so I have combined the NT ownership & restoration sections.— Rod ^talk 15:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thank you for addressing them so quickly. The article has now definitely improved - the prose flows better and there are no outstanding copyediting issues, the references and citations are also in good standing. This article now meets the GA criteria, looks like another Somerset GA! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wellington Monument, Somerset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714144751/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B%20filename%3D297%2F965%2Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%2C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadername3=Content-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B%20filename%3D297%2F965%2Fnt_acquisitions_dec2011-2%2C2.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B%20charset%3DUTF-8&blobheadervalue3=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1349117284549&ssbinary=true

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)