Talk:Brownsville, Texas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 00:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Heya! Looks like this has been nominated for quite some time, so I'm going to try to take it up. —Bsoyka ^talk 00:53, 2 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.	Prose looks great to me!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with MoS
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.	Many good citations, no issues
	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).	All citations are from reliable sources
	2c. it contains no original research.	Contains no original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvios from what I can tell
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses main aspects clearly and concisely
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focuses on the city and its history very well, doesn't really stray away
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Written with a very neutral and encyclopedic tone
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No significant issues with edit warring, etc.
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.	All images are licensed with either Creative Commons or public domain
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant and have well-written, accurate captions
	7. Overall assessment.	I believe a lot of great work has been put into this article, and it has great value for those who read it. As such, I am completing this review. This article is now a Good Article. —Bsoyka talk 02:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)