Talk:Knife Edge Two Piece 1962–65

Knife Edge Two Piece 1962–65 has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 14, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

London GA‑class

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York (state) GA‑class

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada: British Columbia GA‑class Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

A fact from Knife Edge Two Piece 1962–65 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 March 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Knife Edge Two Piece has been described as looking like a "crashed unidentified flying object"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/March.

Wikipedia

Coordinates

Is this article about one instance of the work, or all of them? If the latter, I'm not sure having coordinates is appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! It is about the series, so coordinates might be appropriate for semi-permanent casts. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Knife Edge Two Piece 1962–65/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

With a few minor grammatical tweaks, and a fulfilled request of intro expansion, the article now complies with policies on style, structure, and context. If I had to guess... (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article is well-referenced with use of plenty of reputable third-party sources. No sign of original research. If I had to guess... (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) 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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article looks to cover all aspects of its topic for which relevant encyclopedic material was available, and does not look to drift into trivia anywhere. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article discusses its topic in a non-biased tone throughout. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The most recent revisions in the article's history shows that it has not been the subject of any edit warring since at least February 2013. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The article is decently illustrated, and all files comply with fair use laws. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

Under the heading "Westminster cast", the text begins: "The most conspicuous cast of Knife Edge Two Piece". It may not be necessary, but I just have a gut feeling a statement like "The most conspicuous" should be immediately followed by an inline citation. I read over the source used to verify this paragraph, and it did not specifically refer to the casting in this way. Is it referred to like that in one of the others, by chance? If I had to guess... (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Westminster cast is often featured in outside broadcasts from Parliament, but as it is uncited I have removed it. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Granted the article is relatively small, but in keeping with MoS policies on the intro to an article, I just feel like there could be a smidge more to the intro than there currently is. Maybe a sentence on the restoration of the sculpture, a prominent section at the end, and that would suffice. Other than these two points, I think the article's ready to go. If I had to guess... (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the intro. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If I had to guess... (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am now confident the article satisfies GA criteria. Congratulations! :) If I had to guess... (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]