Talk:Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch/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

Nominator: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 22:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 07:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Well-written and clear. Incorporates quotations from sources fluidly.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The sourcing is strong. Use of primary sources is minimal. One likely self-published (a tourist guidebook by Berenson and deMause) is appropriately cited only for the opinion of the authors.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is comprehensive. Each section is thorough but not so long the page is unwieldy, and at no point did I feel bogged down in detail. The excellent structuring of the page makes navigation to different sections intuitive.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not a lot of heated opinions to address here, but the section on the reception on the arch and its sculptures is even-handed and represents a variety of views.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Well-illustrated with images from a range of perspectives and multiple points in history.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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.