Talk:Brooklyn Bridge/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Happypillsjr (talk · contribs) 03:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll also review this, comments to follow - I've been watching the updates to it as well :)-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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.	Pass. No issue.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass
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.	Pass.
	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).	Pass
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No oringinal research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Most images are in good quality and self work.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Medias are relevant. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

@Happypillsjr: Thanks for the comments. I noticed that the review is on hold, which means there are 7 days to resolve the issues. Are there any specific problems I should fix? epicgenius (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Just a couple of things, make sure all media are relevant to each topic of this article and no original research. Lastly, I will focus on the topics without going into unnecessary details. That's all.-- Happypillsjr ✉ 03:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Happypillsjr: Thanks for these comments. I think the media are all relevant, and there is no original research. Also, it looks like the topics are all focused and do not contain unnecessary details. Unless there's something specific I'm missing, then all of these concerns have been resolved. epicgenius (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall

@Epicgenius:, I made a conclusion that this article is success. Great work! Happypillsjr ✉ 05:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)