Talk:1864 Washington Arsenal explosion/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 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: (UTC) by

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


 * {| class="wikitable"

! Reference # !! Citation !! /❌ !!Comment
 * + 2a/2b/2c Combined spot check
 * rowspan = 3| 7
 * rowspan = 3|
 * 2a) || —
 * 2b) || —
 * 2c) || —
 * rowspan = 3| 4
 * 2c) || —
 * rowspan = 3| 4
 * rowspan = 3| 4
 * rowspan = 3| 4


 * rowspan = 3|
 * 2a) || —
 * 2b) || —
 * 2c) || —
 * rowspan = 3| 1
 * 2c) || —
 * rowspan = 3| 1
 * rowspan = 3| 1


 * rowspan = 3|
 * 2a) || —
 * 2b) || —
 * 2c) || —
 * rowspan = 3| 12
 * 2c) || —
 * rowspan = 3| 12
 * rowspan = 3| 12


 * rowspan = 3|
 * 2a) || —
 * 2b) || —
 * 2c) || —
 * rowspan = 3| 9
 * 2c) || —
 * rowspan = 3| 9
 * rowspan = 3| 9


 * rowspan = 3|
 * 2a) || —
 * 2b) || —
 * 2c) || —
 * }
 * 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

====Overall: ====

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)