From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (
|
visual edit |
history ) ·
Article talk (
|
history ) ·
Watch
Reviewer:
Lovinne (
talk ·
contribs )
01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
Planning to do GA review. At first glance, the article looks good. I will update soon.
Thank you for taking this up.--
Kew Gardens 613 (
talk )
01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
reply
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 ) :
Very well written. Some minor errors corrected. Under the "63rd street subway" heading, the list has fragment sentences, but I think it's pretty clear that those serve as titles.
It is factually accurate and
verifiable .
a (
reference section ) : b (citations to
reliable sources ) : c (
OR ) : d (
copyvio and
plagiarism ) :
Plenty of reliable sources, books and historical news articles alike. Consensus from multiple references.
It is broad in its coverage .
a (
major aspects ) : b (
focused ) :
Broad, fact-based coverage. Lots of detail, but it's relevant.
It follows the
neutral point of view policy .
Fair representation without bias :
It is stable .
No edit wars, etc. :
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 ) :
I think the images could be bigger.
Overall :
Pass/Fail :
Nicely done!