Talk:Gate to the Northwest Passage/GA1

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

Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I know you've waited over a month and a half for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for offering to review this article! Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Initial review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Article is close, but it needs some work
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Needs improvement, see prose review
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Seems stable enough, good work being done on the talkpage
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The captions need some work. All say "the sculpture in XXXX." Talk about what is in the background or to the side. Include information about the curved design. It needs something to not be so mundane.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very close.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The captions need some work. All say "the sculpture in XXXX." Talk about what is in the background or to the side. Include information about the curved design. It needs something to not be so mundane.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very close.
 * Very close.

Prose review

 * Using an ellipsis like is used once in each section including the lead at the beginning or ending of a quote is unnecessary. These are intended for use when shortening a quote in the center.
 * Agreed. The ellipsis were not my doing. Removed. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The background and description subhead should just say Background.
 * Done. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Why was there a need to commemorate Vancouver's arrival? Some background about this would round the article better.
 * Why is there a need to commemorate anything? There is not a source specifically addressing why, so I'd rather not infer. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there may be some misunderstanding due to how I formulated that question. Commemorations are normally for observing or anniversaries of specific events or situations. Why are we saying the sculpture is for a commemorate someones arrival, without explaining the reason for need for the commemoration? What I mean is, why his his arrival important? This may be obvious to you, but to myself, and many readers may not understand. Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. See diff. This is according to the City of Vancouver, which says,"The parameters for the juried competition operated by Parks Canada were to create 'a monument in Vanier Park to commemorate Captain George Vancouver,' the first European to sail into Burrard Inlet, in 1792." Another Believer  ( Talk ) 22:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * When you list the measurements of the sculpture, the first time is listed in metres (4.6) but the second (3'x3') and third (26'x28') time by foot. This should be standardized, and since it is about a Canadian related topic, I'd recommend using metres. Also, look at using the convert template at CONVERT for the second and third measurements.
 * Done. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The use of adverse in the first sentence of the Reception section does not need quotation marks.
 * Done. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the second paragraph in the same section should start: "A 1983 article published in..."
 * Done. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * For now this is all I have. I will be completing a second read-through but I don't think there are any further issues.  Let me know when these are addressed or responded to.  Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I assume that the dimensions here are in feet, despite being a Canadian website? Another Believer  ( Talk ) 18:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. It looks that way. When its written like that using the Prime (symbol), it only seems to be used for feet (for distances). Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the other sources say 4.6 m (15 ft), so I am not worried about the article's accuracy. I guess I am just surprised the Canadian source used feet. Another Believer  ( Talk ) 22:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It surprised me too. Either way, Review Passed! Cheers,  TLSuda  (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Another Believer  ( Talk ) 05:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)