Talk:1864 Washington Arsenal explosion/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: APK (talk · contribs) 09:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: FenrisAureus (talk · contribs) 06:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello fellow traveller! I will be reviewing this nomination over the course of the next several days. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN.— FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

GA review

Last updated: 18:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC) by BlueMoonset

See what the criteria are and what they are not

1) Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

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

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

2a/2b/2c Combined spot check

Reference #	Citation	Y/N	Comment
7	"Frightful Explosion at the Arsenal". The Evening Star. June 17, 1864. p. 2. Archived from the original on February 5, 2024. Retrieved February 4, 2024.	2a)	—
		2b)	—
		2c)	—
4	Bellamy, Jay (2012). "Fireworks, Hoopskirts—and Death". Prologue. 44 (1). Archived from the original on 2021-03-22. Retrieved 2024-02-04.	2a)	—
		2b)	—
		2c)	—
1	Jacob, Kathryn Allamong (1998). Testament to Union: Civil War Monuments in Washington, D.C. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 21–23. ISBN 9780801858611.	2a)	—
		2b)	—
		2c)	—
12	DeFerrari, John (August 16, 2017). "The Washington Arsenal's Explosive History". Streets of Washington. Archived from the original on January 30, 2024. Retrieved February 5, 2024.	2a)	—
		2b)	—
		2c)	—
9	Terell, Ellen (June 19, 2015). ""An almost inexcusable catastrophe" – Explosion at the Washington Arsenal". Library of Congress. Archived from the original on January 30, 2024. Retrieved February 4, 2024.	2a)	—
		2b)	—
		2c)	—

2d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

3) Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

4) Neutral:

4) Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5) Stable:

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

Status query

FenrisAureus, APK, where does this review stand? So far as I can see, nothing has been posted here for four weeks, and what has been posted seems to be templates without any definitive decisions one way or the other. FenrisAureus, are you still interested in pursuing this review? If not, we can arrange to have the nomination put back into the pool awaiting reviewers with no loss of seniority. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That would probably be best. Personal circumstances have prevented me from spending much time editing lately. Apologies. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The nomination has now been put back in into the pool awaiting reviewers with no loss of seniority. Thanks for your reply, FenrisAureus. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)