Talk:Southend Pier/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this one. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) GACR#1a. Well written: the prose is clear, concise and understandable.
 * 2) GACR#1a. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
 * 6) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for linking.
 * 7) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
 * 8) GACR#1b. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
 * 9) GACR#2a. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 10) GACR#2b. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 11) GACR#2b. All inline citations are from reliable sources.
 * 12) GACR#2b. All quotations are cited and their usage complies with MOS guidelines.
 * 13) GACR#2c. No original research.
 * 14) GACR#2d. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 15) GACR#3. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 16) GACR#4. Neutral (NPOV).
 * 17) GACR#5. Stable.
 * 18) GACR#6a. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.
 * 19) GACR#6b. Images are relevant to the topic with appropriate captions.

I'll be using this list to complete the review. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm that the article is stable. I think the images are excellent – all are appropriate, illustrative and free of any copyright concerns. I've read the lead section which looks good in itself and I just need to make sure it adequately summarises the narrative. Will read the narrative next. Hope to be back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've checked the criteria and given all of them a tick. It's an excellent, interesting and informative article that has been thoroughly researched and well written. I think you should take it to WP:FA because it must be in with a real chance of success there. It has passed GA easily and I'm really pleased that I can promote it. Very well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for this, it's great that you think it is now easily at GA standard. It would probably be worth mentioning for anyone checking this in future that a comprehensive peer review was done by yourself already and so the GA designation you have allocated is on the back of that. On your point about FA, it would be great to have an FA article that I could attribute (even in part) to myself; while I have many GAs "under the belt" (so to speak), the featured level is still a "trophy" I have yet to touch! Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)