Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cardiff Arms Park/1

Cardiff Arms Park

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Cardiff_Arms_Park/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delist article requires significant work on citations to regain GA status. MOS:IMAGELOC is not explicitly part of the GA criteria. MOS:LAYOUT refers to only one specific part of MOS:IMAGES (size), not IMAGELOC. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

There are a bunch of sentences without citations. It's not on the good article criteria, but there are sandwiching issues with the images as well. Steelkamp (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Steelkamp MOS:IMAGELOC is explicitly part of the GA criteria. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Steelkamp (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that it is, . The GA criteria only state:
 * "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio"
 * "media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content;"
 * "media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions."
 * WP:WGN notes "Mistakes to avoid: Requiring compliance with all of MOS:IMAGES (as opposed to just the sections linked in the GA criteria)". AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically what is required is compliance with MOS:LAYOUT, of which MOS:IMAGES is a sub article. Most of the important points in the latter are in the former as well and therefore required by the GA criteria. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's your interpretation. I don't see any indication that MOS:IMAGES is a subpage of MOS:LAYOUT, other than the former being linked from the latter (along with every MOS page). Template Style explicitly separates images and layout. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)