Talk:James A. Garfield Monument/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: APK (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: MallardTV (talk · contribs) 16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The article is incredibly well written in all aspects, however I find the Biography section to almost be too long and stray away from the purpose of the article, perhaps a link to the main article for his bio would be useful. 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): It is well cited to reliable sources. However, it could benefit from some additional ones. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: The article stays on topics for the most part and is neutral and unbiased. The one thing is as I mentioned earlier the bio section. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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): The images are certainly useful and I feel there are plenty.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Overall, I feel this meets all the criteria for a good article!
· · ·