Talk:St Andrew's Castle, Hamble/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 09:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Overall a pretty solid piece of work on a pretty minor fortification. Just a few small issues that I can see:
 * In the first paragraph you repeat "modest" twice in two sentences, could one of these been changed to avoid the repetition?
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "25 metres (82 ft)-wide moat" I think that using 25 m or 25 m would work better, creating "25 m moat" or "25 m wide moat".
 * It seems to need to be 25 m to work, and I've amended accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "..has been heavily effected by.." Should be "affected" not "effected".
 * Good catch! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "..by coastal erosion - the local.." The hyphen should probably be an emdash to match the one a little later in the sentence.
 * Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Journals (Kenyon and Walton) should still have ISSN or ISBN numbers to use.
 * Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the references, is the Walton source from Osiris (journal)? If so, it would be useful to wikilink it. Harrias talk 09:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Should all be done now - thanks Harrias! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is well-written and complies the the relevant MOS guidelines.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is well-referenced and there is no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Despite being a short article, it appears the cover the subject suitably.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No neutrality issues.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No stability issues.
 * 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):
 * Images illustrate the article well and are appropriately licensed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Nice work! Harrias talk 07:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)