Talk:Grand Avenue–Newtown station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Will take this one. 12:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Lead and infobox; all good
• Section 1;
  • Link Manhattan, on the first mention
• Section 2;
  • Link sans serif lettering and Cerulean

• Section 2.1; all good
• One dab link, found. Fix this.
• Two dead links, found. Fix them.
• 25.4% confidence, event though the violation is unlikely, I suggest to rephrase the sentences in section 2.1. As it detects lengthy sentences.

Excellent article, very well written. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have fixed the Manhattan link, and I have linked Cerulean and sans serif. I fixed the sentence, and I have gotten rid of the bad links. They aren't needed. The dab link is only used at the top of the page to indicate other articles with Grand Avenue. If there is anything else please mention it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.

---

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):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)