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

Reviewer: InterestGather ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

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):

   Passed after some simple corrections, issues generally related to unnecessary commas and unnecessary spaces added after periods.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

   Occasional original research, I have cleaned it up.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

   Numerous occasions of unnecessary topics in unrelated sections, one example includes the mention of "no criminal arrests" on the Glendale campus in an unrelated campus. I have corrected this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Previous edit wars, however due to the decent time passed since their occurrence (over 2 years) I do not believe it is unreasonable to say the conflict has concluded.

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:

   After some necessary corrections, the article fits all six good article criteria, does not meet the immediate fail criteria and therefor will be pushed forward.