Talk:Buhl Altarpiece/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 07:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Beginning
I am beginning my second Good Article review to determine whether or not the article in question, Buhl Altarpiece, passes muster and is worthy of the Green Plus. I will review this article according to the instructions provided here and confirm or deny that Buhl Altarpiece meets the Good Article criterion.

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article does indeed meet the criteria and, because of its small size, I have decided to immediately pass it on one condition: a citation is found and implemented for the final sentence of the last paragraph of the History section.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I personally do not doubt the authenticity of the article, but I do feel (given experience since my last review, oops!) that the above fret should be addressed and amended immediately.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: