Talk:Knife Edge Two Piece 1962–65/GA1

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

: With a few minor grammatical tweaks, and a fulfilled request of intro expansion, the article now complies with policies on style, structure, and context. If I had to guess... (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

: The article is well-referenced with use of plenty of reputable third-party sources. No sign of original research. If I had to guess... (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * (c)

: The article looks to cover all aspects of its topic for which relevant encyclopedic material was available, and does not look to drift into trivia anywhere. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

. The article discusses its topic in a non-biased tone throughout. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC) . The most recent revisions in the article's history shows that it has not been the subject of any edit warring since at least February 2013. &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC) : The article is decently illustrated, and all files comply with fair use laws. &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (a)
 * (b)

Comments

 * Under the heading "Westminster cast", the text begins: "The most conspicuous cast of Knife Edge Two Piece". It may not be necessary, but I just have a gut feeling a statement like "The most conspicuous" should be immediately followed by an inline citation. I read over the source used to verify this paragraph, and it did not specifically refer to the casting in this way. Is it referred to like that in one of the others, by chance? If I had to guess... (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The Westminster cast is often featured in outside broadcasts from Parliament, but as it is uncited I have removed it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted the article is relatively small, but in keeping with MoS policies on the intro to an article, I just feel like there could be a smidge more to the intro than there currently is. Maybe a sentence on the restoration of the sculpture, a prominent section at the end, and that would suffice. Other than these two points, I think the article's ready to go. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the intro. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If I had to guess... (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am now confident the article satisfies GA criteria. Congratulations! :) If I had to guess... (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)