Talk:Växjö Cathedral/GA1

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

This looks a very interesting article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Review
The article is clearly written and covers an interesting topic. It is stable and 91.8% of authorship is one user, Yakikaki. It is currently ranked a B class article and is almost a Good Article..


 * The image of the statue of Saint Sigfrid by Peter Lind is listed as public domain but also notes that "reusing or linking to this file can have legal consequences." I therefore suggest removing it unless this can be resolved.
 * I have removed the picture, I didn't see the tag before – thanks for pointing it out!


 * The article follows MOS:IMAGE. However, multiple images are used in close proximity so there is a risk of MOS:SANDWICH. This may be resolved by removing the image of the statue.
 * Indeed, it's a bit less cramped now.


 * Please check that abbreviations are in compliance with MOS:MISCSHORT.
 * I couldn't find any problems about this, was there anything in particular you were thinking of?


 * The article has a good range of references, mainly from sources in Swedish. The cathedral is mentioned in Yates' Liturgical Space: Christian Worship and Church Buildings in Western Europe 1500-2000. Is there anything useful here?
 * I don't have access to this book, but managed to get a glimpse through innovative use of search terms. It seems that the cathedral is indeed mentioned in the book, but mainly in passing in the passages I could find. I honesly doubt that there would be much in there that isn't already in especially the monography on the cathedral by Gustafsson & Ullén.


 * Please ping me when you are ready for me to look again. simongraham (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this article, and for the points above. I have tried to address them all, so far. Let me know what you think. Yakikaki (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work. I think that is everything. simongraham (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic;
 * it stays ffocused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
 * images are (relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Congratulations. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.
 * Pass/Fail: --  simongraham (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail: --  simongraham (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)