Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Strand, London/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Dr. Blofeld in topic GA Review

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Will review tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • "Part of its length was known in the 13th century" -do we know which part?
Another source says it was a name of the whole street generally, so I've copyedited this Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Link Civil War in first instance, remove in modern times section?
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • In the Somserset House paragraph can you reword a few examples of "house", it is repeated quite a lot.
Try that Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Watch rep of "popular" in second paragraph of Modern era
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • " King's College Hospital opened in 1840, and the college became a constituent college of the University of London in 1908. " -shouldn't the latter part of this follow on from where you mention the college rather than the hospital?
I think the confusion here is where "college" refers to the term generally, and of the formation of an integrated University of London, reworded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ritchie333: Can see little wrong with it, will pass once addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Doubtless the masses will descend and copyedit it if it hits DYK, but that's not actually a bad thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply