Talk:Port of Liverpool Building/GA1

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

Reviewer:  SilkTork  *YES! 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I haven't read the article yet, I'll do that over the next few days and then make some initial comments. I do note however that there is heavy reliance on one source, which on inspection is a primary source. WP:Captions are sometimes too long. The gallery may not be appropriate per WP:IG. And some of the images sandwich text, which is against guidance on MOS:IMAGES. The external links do not appear to meet WP:EL guidelines - the commons link is the accepted and appropriate method of linking to images.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of 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 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Sorry for delay
I have been ill for the past few days. Recovering now, and getting back on track. I will look at this over the next few days.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, hope you get well soon --Daviessimo (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * Stable. Article was created in 2004, and has attracted less than 40 editors in that time. The main contributor is Daviessimo, with nearly 60% of the edits. The article attracts an average of 1,000 views a month, and appears to have had only one piece of vandalism in its history.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Images. File:MDHB advert (Port of Liverpool).jpg is detailed as Mersey Docks and Harbour Board being the author, and with a copyright tag saying that the image has passed into the public domain because the author died over 70 years ago - yet Mersey Docks and Harbour Board still exists. The image is anyway redundant, as it adds nothing substantial to the article that is not already given by File:Port of Liverpool Building.jpg, and it clutters the article against MoS guidance given in MOS:IMAGES. The captions are sometimes too long - see guidance in WP:CAP. I suggest removing File:Port of Liverpool Building 1.jpg and File:MDHB advert (Port of Liverpool).jpg. I have adjusted the caption for File:Port of Liverpool Building.jpg.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have sorted the images. Images are now GA compliant.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pass
This is a readable and interesting article. I have tidied up the minor issues, and it now appears to meet GA criteria. Well done.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)