Talk:Mountain Fountain

Mountain Fountain has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 30, 2023. (Reviewed version).

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Auckland Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Auckland, which aims to improve the coverage of Auckland, New Zealand, on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.AucklandWikipedia:WikiProject AucklandTemplate:WikiProject AucklandWikiProject Auckland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mountain Fountain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cessaune (talk · contribs) 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can review this. I'm relatively busy in real life, so it might take me a couple weeks. Cessaune [talk] 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cessaune, I'd just like to remind you as you may have forgot. It has been almost 3 months :) —Panamitsu (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Panamitsu, thank you for your exceptional patience. I'll be done by Saturday, 12:00 UTC. Cessaune [talk] 15:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muchness, here we go.

Well-written: Y
1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct Y
  - I could choose to be nitpicky here, and honestly, I had written an entire paragraph, but the wording is GA-quality. There's nothing worth changing. It's already good.
2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation Y
Verifiable with no original research: Y
1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline Y
2. 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) Y
  - I went ahead and checked the sources. It's all good. I'm just going to assume good faith and presume that the physical sources are all good, considering the quality of the digital ones.
3. it contains no original research Y
4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism Y
Broad in its coverage: Y
1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic Y
2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Y
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each Y
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute Y
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y
1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content Y
2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions Y

I'd like to write more, but the honest truth is that there aren't many issues. It's already good, but now it's good (

). Thanks for your patience, and for the exceptional quality of the article. It really is a cool sculpture.

Are you going to submit a DYK nom? If not, I'd like to. Cessaune [talk] 03:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]