Talk:Oxford Circus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs) 16:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am going to pick up the review of Oxford Circus. My first impressions is that it is a well-written article and the majority of paragraphs are properly sourced. One thing I have picked up on is that the article's lead does not have any sources. One thing I have picked up on in a recent review I did to a different article is overlinking. However, this article is not overlinked which is good. I will do a more detailed review in the next seven days. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The spelling and grammar of this article is correct. The article is very understandable to a broad audience and the article is well-written, clear and concise.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Thanks to Ritchie333 for clarifying WP:LEADCITE which this article complies to. The manual of style is met for layout and words to watch. I have no issues with the manual of style for this article.
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.	The references are presented neatly in a reflist with other sources presented in the "sources" section. There are no external links but this is not at all a problem.
	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).	All of the references are from reliable sources including The Guardian and BBC News. There are no references that are problematic and no dead links.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are no issues with original research as all the references are from reliable sources. There are no spam links.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I have managed to do the WP:COPYVIO check and the only thing that shows up is a quotation from Boris Johnson and that is absolutely fine.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All the content is related to the subject of the article which is Oxford Circus. There is no content that is irrelevant to Oxford Circus.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does not go into unnecessary detail and is very focused on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is neutral with no WP:PUFFERY.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article never had to be protected due to edit warring and it is stable on a day-to-day basis. No issues with stability.
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.	I have checked this and I can confirm that all the images are licensed and are tagged with their copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There are six images in the article which are appropriate to the topic and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The article passes WP:GA criteria and is now a good article. Thank you User:Ritchie333 for all your help in improving this article to a good article.

The lead doesn't need sources explicitly (per WP:LEADCITE), though all the information in the lead must be present in the body, and cited to reliable sources there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you that the information mentions in the lead is cited in the body so that is all good. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I have to do the copyvio check before passing this article as a good article. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, Earwig's copyright violation detector is broken so I am unable to check for copyright violations. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This article has now passed WP:GA. Thanks for all your help Ritchie333. The article was very well written and is at a good quality so this was a nice and straightforward assessment. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)