Talk:Joseph's Tomb/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comments[edit]

A good article that is almost a good Good Article. The main body of the article is certainly of GA-standard and I would pass it as it stands; however the WP:Lead needs some attention before I can award GA.
It, the WP:Lead, is intended to both provide an introduction to the article, which it does well, and to provide a summary of the main points. Unfortunately, there is the (ugly?) matter of politics: a concise unbiased (if possible) summary of mid-late 20/ early 21st century events needs to be included. It aught, as a minimum consider the problems of change of ownership/site access, damage to the structure and repairs.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Once the Lead has been addressed, I'll award the article GA-status.

I would also Note some inconsistent formatting of citations, some have titles in italics, others don't. The titles (i.e. of books or journals, etc) all aught to be in italics, but this is somewhat less of a problem than the WP:Lead.

Pyrotec (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting and comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated, article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on bringing this article upto the required standard. It may be worth submitting this article, after a period of stability (and the inevitable vandalism) to WP:PR.

I consider that this article has potential as a WP:FAC, that is for the future, if you wish to go in that direction; but I would advise against an immediate nomination, it would need to go through WP:PR first. Pyrotec (talk) 15:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]