Talk:Lafayette dollar/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 10:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon my initial review, this article meets most of the criteria for Good Article status, and I look forward to conducting a more thorough review in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. -- Caponer (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

, I commend you on a thorough and comprehensive job well done on this article! As I stated above, this article meets most of the criteria for Good Article status. I have only a few very minor comments and suggestions that need to be addressed before this article passes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph of the lead, would it be possible to list Lafayette's full name Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette and maybe provide a brief description of his significance? The remainder of the overview provided in the lead as a whole is sufficient.
 * In the article's infobox, Charles E. Barber needn't be wiki-linked twice.
 * Under the Background section in the sentence: "He made his way to Philadelphia, where he initially met a cold reception from the Congress." Would "received" work better here, rather than "met?"
 * Should French Revolution and Napoleon be wiki-linked under Background? I also suggest wiki-linking "restoration of the monarchy" to Bourbon Restoration. These are merely suggestions.
 * In the third paragraph of the Inception section, "Fundraising to build the Lafayette monument was a major component's of the commission's work..." Should this read "component" instead?
 * I made several minor tweaks, so please let me know if you disagree with any of these.


 * I will look through them during the course of the day tomorrow and will be back to you. Thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I have done as you suggested in all cases.  I appreciate the help and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, thank you for taking the time to address my comments and suggestions. I've re-reviewed the article, and everything looks good to go! I hereby pass this article for Good Article status! Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)