Talk:Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor)/GA1

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.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EggRoll97 (talk · contribs) 12:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial Reviewing

I've currently reviewed the criteria that are easy to verify and decide one way or the other. The remaining criteria will take up the majority of the general 7 days allotted for a GA nominee review. If anyone has any comments, please feel free to leave them below. EggRoll97 (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

More Reviewing

I've finished checking most of the criteria, I just need to check the citations. However, I currently see absolutely no links to references for the first three paragraphs of the article, which may put the article on hold. EggRoll97 (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@EggRoll97: This is per WP:CITELEAD: The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article. As long as the material is cited in the body and not controversial, the lead doesn't necessarily need citations. In this case, all the references are in the body. This is so the lead would not be cluttered with references. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Alright, thank you for the clarification. That's the only potential issue I saw with the article, so with that out of the way, I'll be finishing up the review and marking it as passed. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)