User:Moswento/GA1

Comments
Overall, an excellent article. I have a few comments/questions, which I've noted below. I may add a few additional comments on a second read-through.


 * Lead
 * I'll come back to this later


 * History
 * First sentence has material copied verbatim from the source - could you rephrase?
 * I wonder if the sentence "So the Arnus would mean 'the flowing one'." could be removed as possibly redundant?
 * Improvements
 * A thought - there are times I feel the text in this section could be slightly more concise. To take the first paragraph as an example, I would cut "near the later railway station", "there" (after "river channel below") and "declared to be". I wouldn't insist on any of those cuts, but it might be worth you reading through the 'Improvements' section again with a "do I need all of these words?" mindset.
 * Paragraph 2, sentence 1 - this sentence seems a bit awkward at the moment, because of the "although its". Rephrase?
 * Operation
 * Paragraph 2, final sentence - currently reads "the benefits were", although there is only really one benefit, the increase in business. List this as the benefit, and the other part as the reason?
 * Decline
 * Final paragraph, final sentence - was Edward Slaughter still hiring pleasure boats in the 1990s, or a company he had founded?
 * Present
 * Didn't notice anything here
 * Route
 * Second paragraph, second sentence - a bit awkward, esp. the " and buildings named The Old Wharf on the 1:2500 map to the south of the bridge" - rephrase?
 * "Soon it is crossed by Orfold Aqueduct, which carried the navigation over it." - not sure what the 'it' refers to?
 * "the remains of Pallingham Manor on the north bank, and Pallingham Manor Farm..." - is Pallingham Manor Farm also on the north bank? I assume it would be, but could be clearer if so.
 * "Exploration of the tunnel was described by an article in Sussex County Magazine in 1953, when both ends were accessible, and again in 2012, " - this sentence could possibly do with being shortened or split
 * "built in the medieval tradition" - a bit vague.


 * Points of interest
 * No problems here


 * References
 * Generally, I would expect to see the list of cited works after the footnotes, rather than before. Perhaps change for consistency with other articles?
 * It would be good to add more info to FN5 ("The Roman Map of Britain")
 * Can I trust eCastles [FN39] and CastleUK.net [FN29] as reliable sources?


 * Images
 * No problems here

Assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: