Talk:1864 Washington Arsenal explosion

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1864 Washington Arsenal explosion/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Reviewer: BigChrisKenney (talk · contribs) 00:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I am going to review this article as part of the October 2024 GA Drive. I look forward to working with you. Let's get this article to GA status!

Thanks for taking the time to review and copyedit! APK hi :-) (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Initial Review

Intro

My biggest concern for the intro is how long it is. Consider shortening.

 Done APK hi :-) (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

History

Background

Good.

Explosion

"Bricks and other debris flew into all directions."

• This sentence is not in the source. Cite or remove.

"...including send who were blinded."

• This word doesn't make sense here.

 Done APK hi :-) (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

Good.

Monument

Good.

Later History

Good.

See Also

Why is the Allegheny Arsenal explosion listed here?

• I thought it was related since they were both explosions at arsenals during the Civil War. I can remove if you disagree. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

References

I find them all acceptable and relevant.

I have made edits throughout the article that you may choose to review.

Final Assessment

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

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

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):
   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

BigChrisKenney (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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.