Talk:525 Lexington Avenue/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Zippybonzo (talk · contribs) 06:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

No tags or major issues I can find from a first glance, seems pretty good for all the criteria, but I'll get reviewing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@Zippybonzo: Thanks for taking on this review. I appreciate it. Please feel free to point out any issues with the article, even if they're minor typos; I'll be glad to fix them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, It’s pretty much a perfect article, today and tomorrow I will deal with the last few checks, but from what I have done so far, it’s likely a GA, if I see anything, I’ll let you know. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 18:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.