Talk:Montpelier Hill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I'm sorry of the apparent lack of progress on this review, I'm not sure where the time went.

I've completed a couple of quick read-throughs of the article and it appears, generally, to be at or about GA-level, so I will not be "quick failing" this nomination.

I'm now doing to carryout a more detailed review, working my way through the article section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. At this point, I will mostly be concentrating on "problems", if any. So if I don't find too many this part of the review will be quite "thin". I hope to have this completed in the next 24 hours or so (perhaps 36 hours, we will see). Pyrotec (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• History -
  • The Hell Fire Club -

• This subsection looks OK.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Prehistoric monuments , The Stewards House , Killakee (Lord Massy's) Estate , Carthy’s Castle & Orlagh House -

• These four subsections look OK.

• Access and recreation & WP:Lead -

• I'm happy with these. Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, well-rferenced, well-illustrated article

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. 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:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on producing an interesting and informative article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)