Talk:Last Exit on Brooklyn/GA2

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ypnypn (talk · contribs) 00:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is good, and there are no copyright problems. However, it would be better if there were less quotes (see MOS:QUOTE. The spelling and grammar are fine. The mentioned guidelines are all followed, and the use of "notable" is clearly sourced, so it's okay.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are plenty of references, presented properly. No original research here.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All main aspects are discussed, although it would be nice to mention how it got its name. Summary style is followed.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It doesn't seem like there's any criticism, so the article is neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars (and few edits at all) in the past few months.

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):

   The pictures are free-use, although the top one has an attribution requirement (it's from [[[Wikia:]]). The first caption is somewhat akward; I would prefer just "Front view," it's obvious that it's the exterior, and it's pretty clear it's of the subject of the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Qualifies. A few more comments:

   1. The article's very short. Technically, there's nothing wrong, but I'm sure if you go through the sources you'll find some more information to include. That being said, if you can't find anything else, there's no need to add words for the sake of it.
   2. The lead describes it as being part of Seattle's counterculture, and it's sourced, but the article doesn't explain how.
   3. What do you mean by "popular destination for Seattle Go"? Is Seattle Go different than other types of Go? If not, replace with "for Go in Seattle."
   4. In that sentence, it's a "popular destination for Go and Chess players" implies that both the Go and the Chess players were largely professionals. If that's not true, fix it.

Overall the article qualifies. Why don't you return the favor by reviewing someone else's good article candidate?

The discussion above 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.