Talk:Apple Bank Building/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Shushugah in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 22:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    It is exceptionally well written. I found a few mistakes though. See below for further comments
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    19% similarity found on earwig, but manually verified not an issue
  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):  
    Yes freely licensed with CC 4.0 SA or public domain
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
  • MDCCLIX should be MDCCCLIX (missing a 'C')
  • The caption in Wikipedia are all excellent, but one photo showing a residential view with incorrect description on Commons: it should state 2112 Broadway as visually depicted, even if the main building entrance is 2100 Broady
  • Wikilink Anti-German sentiment
  • In one case an online sources exist, it would be nice to link to them. ie A little bit lauder. It still can be linked, even though WP:NYPOST discourages its usage. In this case, I think it's warranted/acceptable to keep. All in all, an excellent article with some minor changes to implement. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Shushugah, thanks for the review and sorry it took so long for me to reply. I did not see the comments until now. I'll work on these shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Shushugah, it looks like these changes were implemented. (Courtesy ping due to the length of the review) Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 20:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Sammi Brie thank you for pinging me. I have a reputation as not being reliably responsive on GA reviews, but in this case I wasn't pinged about implemented changes till now. Thank you for that, and of course, if I was pinged/don't respond after a reasonable period, I always encourage others to boldly take-over/ping again. My tardiness shouldn't hinder anyone else. More pertinently, congrats on another GA! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Epicgenius forgot to ping! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply