Talk:St Mark's Campanile/GA1

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

Reviewer: SurenGrig07 (talk · contribs) 20:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Following an immediate inspection of the article and an immediate reading of the text components of the article, in addition to a summarisation of the references section and following the elimination of various minor errors within the text of the article, I believe that the article qualifies for selection as a Good Article; this primarily results from its satisfaction of the criteria for the selection of good articles. Concerning the first criterion, the article possesses particularly correct prose; a relatively large quantity of grammatical errors remain absent from the article, with the exclusive errors which remain present, upon a cursory reading of the article, remaining the generalised subject of targeted small quantities of advanced copy editing. With regards to the second criterion, the references within the article primarily correspond to the guidelines established within the Manual of Style for short citations; there appears to remain a complete absence of original research and an abundance of inline citations remain provided, with the prose within the article not possessing an apparent resemblance to additional work concerning the Campanile. The article remains particularly broad within its coverage, primarily encompassing the large majority of associated topics concerning the Campanile; the provision of extensive and minute details concerning historical events associated with the structure remains, within my opinion, an accomplishment worthy of laudation. However, if the individual responsible for the nomination of the article desires to strive towards its further improvement, I would primarily recommend the merger of the "Convocation of the Great Council" section and its appropriate section concerning the Senate; minor copy editing which, with particular attention to the article, may remain completed within several minutes would additionally assist within the improvement of the quality of the article. Returning from this component, the article does not remain the subject of an edit war, as a singular individual, the nominator, remains responsible for the large majority of improvement provided to the article; no primary content disputes appear to remain occurring. Lastly, the media provided within the article remains relevant to the topic and provided with suitable captions; in particular, a primary accomplishment of the article remains the provision of the panoramic image and the "Venetian Workday" chart, which assist the quality of the article. Thus, I would primarily like to state that, within accordance with the good article criteria, I primarily approve of the selection of this article for the provision of Good Article status; thank you.