Talk:Grant's Tomb/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops. Part of the August 2023 backlog.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Removed a possible wikilink mistake. See below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead contains only cited info in article, layout good. No other issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Contains three sections that follow layout guideline. Fixed a cs1 maint issue. All good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Everything seems to have a citation.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Uses material in the public domain. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Definitely covers everything, unless people want to learn the geological history of the granite used.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Despite it's length, reasonably the sections themselves are small-ish so creating any subarticles would be unnecessary. My humble recommendation is that if any future expansions should exceed the total readable word count of 15,000, a subarticle detailing the history should be made with of course keeping a summary of that article on this page.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems neutral enough overall. Both positive and negative reception is provided.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Apart from minor copy edits, article is stable enough for review.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Either public domain or from Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	In relevant sections with suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

1a

While representatives from other states favored relocating the president's remains, New York representative were opposed. Were there multiple NY representatives or just one? If just one, I'd add their name.

The facade is modeled after the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus with Persian elements. I feel like this sentence cuts off abruptly. "with incorporated Persian elements"? Something along those lines.

2b

Spot-check: 1, 14, 27, 32, 47, 50, 67, 75, 86, 98, 101, 112, 128, 134, 140, 151, 163, 176, 187, 192, 209, 213, 227, 231, 245, 252, 268, 276, 289, 293, 303, 311, 329, 334, 342, 350, 362, 379, 387, 391, 402, 414, 420, 436, 441, 459, 467, 478, 483, 491, 500, 514, 525, 539, 541, 551 (Random selection, subject to change due to availability)

• (27) Couldn't find any mention of the headquarters being there in the book. (I am using the Scribd version and searched the term "Lower Manhattan")
• (98) About $1,000 each came from the royalties from Grant's memoirs and a puzzle contest at the end of 1886. Couldn't find in either source how much royalty money was put into the fund.