Talk:Lafayette dollar/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer:

talk · contribs) 10:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

Upon my initial review, this article meets most of the criteria for Good Article status, and I look forward to conducting a more thorough review in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. --

talk) 10:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:WIAGA

for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "
clear and concise", without copyvios
, or spelling and grammar errors:

B.
lists
:

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an
appropriate reference section
:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B.
Focused
:
Is it neutral
?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are
copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
:

B. Images are provided if possible and are
suitable captions
:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

talk) 02:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

In the second paragraph of the lead, would it be possible to list Lafayette's full name Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette and maybe provide a brief description of his significance? The remainder of the overview provided in the lead as a whole is sufficient.
In the article's infobox, Charles E. Barber needn't be wiki-linked twice.
Under the Background section in the sentence: "He made his way to Philadelphia, where he initially met a cold reception from the Congress." Would "received" work better here, rather than "met?"
Should French Revolution and Napoleon be wiki-linked under Background? I also suggest wiki-linking "restoration of the monarchy" to Bourbon Restoration. These are merely suggestions.
In the third paragraph of the Inception section, "Fundraising to build the Lafayette monument was a major component's of the commission's work..." Should this read "component" instead?
I made several minor tweaks, so please let me know if you disagree with any of these.

I will look through them during the course of the day tomorrow and will be back to you. Thank you for your help, it is greatly appreciated.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I have done as you suggested in all cases. I appreciate the help and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]