Talk:Burnside Fountain/GA1

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll review this article. There's one link on the link checker that shows up dead, but I don't think it really is. Seems to show up fine. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for planning to review this article. That ref is not dead, but the same thing happens to me in linkcheck... not sure why.--Found5dollar (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just completed a rather major edit of the first paragraph. I'm trying to make it more concise. What do you think?
 * "Turtle Boy has become an unofficial mascot for Worcester, much in the same way the Manneken Pis is for Brussels." Is there a citation somewhere for this?
 * Also, it's a work of public art, isn't it? (one of the sources mentions this)
 * Do you mind if I go through and copy edit it? Your sources are good.

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph looks great now. There is a ref for the Manneken Pis statement in the "Turtle Boy" section. It is ref #3. Please copy edit this article to your hearts content. Copy editing is not my strong suit at all, I'm more of a researcher.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ok, great! Please check that I don't misrepresent. I've looked at your sources and everything I've looked at support the article. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I only made a couple more edits, mostly moving a paragraph into the last section, and fixing some formating issues. Altogether my edits are the following: What do you think? (I check your citations and they're all sound.) I think it's ready to pass. An interesting, well sourced article. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that paragraph used to be in the turtle boy section, but i moved it to the description becasue i wasnt shure where it best fit. It reads fine there. thanks for the edits and review!--Found5dollar (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
 * b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
 * b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * c. no original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass