Talk:Antarctic Treaty issue/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting, well-written article.
 * GA criteria:
 * 1. Style — meets criteria
 * 2. Verifiability — meets criteria
 * 3. Coverage — meets criteria
 * 4. Neutral — meets criteria
 * 5. Stability — meets criteria
 * 6. Illustration — meets criteria
 * 7. Copyright — meets criteria


 * Style In terms of style, the article is good in its choice use of both long and short statements. Worthy of note are the following parts:
 * Lead: Both paragraphs comprise balanced sentences, which are informative without deviating from the topic, and also do not hold back anything pertinent.
 * The last two sentences of the Background section: Using two sentences is a good choice here, allowing the first sentence to be phrased with time identifier at the beginning (giving the reader its relevance at the beginning) and for a logical breath to be taken.
 * The Release section follows a logical chronology in its breakdown.
 * The last sentence of the Proofs section could be merged into the previous sentence, this does not greatly detract from its status, however.
 * One minor issue is the repeated use of the word "decennial" in a short article, a word which sticks out and can seem excessive just because of its relative obscurity. I made a small edit to remedy one of the instances in the middle of the article, and without scrutiny the repetition now does not read as obvious.


 * Verifiability In terms of verifiability, the article is good in its use of citations. All statements are referenced, most sources are museums, some are reliable news media. There is one source which requires subscription; it is an AP article and by this nature reliable. The article would be better if the same source could be found without needing subscription. There are no in-line citations, but this is in fitting with a short article, especially of this nature.


 * Coverage The article does not leave one wanting on information, and does not make mention of anything unconnected.


 * Neutral The article has a neutral tone. It contains some words and statements that could be contentious:
 * Referring to it as being "notable as Koslow's first postage stamp design" could be contentious before noting the fame of the designer, and how this fame became greater when he designed stamps.
 * Calling the designer "acclaimed" would be contentious without the citations stating such.
 * Describing the design as "considered a matter of political importance" would be contentious without the citation.
 * Furthermore, the article has mentioned in several places the territory disputes in Antarctica with completely neutral phrasings that also give the appropriate information.


 * Stability There are not an excessive number of edits to the page, there are no edit wars.


 * Illustration The article has an appropriate infobox, with an image of the page's subject. There is one further image in the article, which is just relevant enough. The article is short enough to not need more images, though it would be possible to make the article even better with an image of Howard Koslow, a proof of the stamps, one of the events/meetings mentioned, or another related image. Besides the infobox, the article only needs one or two images; more would be excessive.


 * Copyright There do not appear to be copyright issues.

This is a good article. Congratulations! Kingsif (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)