Talk:Samuel Hahnemann Monument/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for another review! APK whisper in my ear  21:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

, as always thank you for all your tremendous work on this article. I've completed my review and re-review and find that your article meets GA criteria, but I do have a few comments that should be addressed prior to its passage. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lede
 * Per Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the monument, establishes the necessary context for the monument, and explains why the monument is notable.
 * The template is beautifully formatted, its contents are cited within the prose and by the references below, and its image is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and therefore eligible for inclusion in this article.
 * The lede is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

History
 * Should Materia Medica Para be italicized, too?
 * The image of sculptor Charles Henry Niehaus in 1896 is releasable to the public domain and is therefore fit for inclusion here.
 * The image of the monument dedication in 1900 is also released to the public domain and is alright to use here.
 * The second paragraph of the "Dedication" subsection needs inline citations.
 * This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no other comments or questions for this section.

Design and location
 * The image of the Hahnemann statue is licensed CC BY 2.0 and therefore acceptable for use here in this article.
 * This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

✅ APK whisper in my ear  01:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've reviewed the article following your additions and find that it is ready to proceed to Good Article status! As always, you've done a phenomenal job, sir. -- Caponer (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)