Talk:Amazon HQ2/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Mgasparin (talk · contribs) 20:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
All right.
1.Is it well written?
Looking at the grammar and quality of the prose, as well as WP:MOS for lead, weasel words, layout, etc., shows that the lead is within the guidelines of 4 paragraphs and does summarize the main body of the article. Also, I can't see any citation needed or NPOV tags, so good job there. As well, the article appears to flow without any abrupt stops or tangents. 
2. Is it verifiable with WP:NOR?
- All claims appear to be properly cited, with no plagiarism, and with all citations from WP:RS. Also, this article does not go into unnecessary detail.
- The long section on the cancellation of the NYC project might seem a bit long, but I think that that is appropriate as it was a major event that needed proper explaining.
- The long section on the cancellation of the NYC project might seem a bit long, but I think that that is appropriate as it was a major event that needed proper explaining.
3. Is it neutral?
- A. As I mentioned earlier, I could not find any NPOV tags on any sentences. As well, it seems to represent the major aspects of the article quite well, giving due weight to each.
4. Is it stable?
- A. I was just looking through the edit history, and I can't find any long or frequent edit wars. The last instance of vandalism was on April 25 of this year, seen [[1]], but otherwise this article does appear quite stable.
5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
- For a relatively short article (46 kB), there are plenty of images to illustrate the article. I have looked at the images used and they are all someone's own photographs.
- For a relatively short article (46 kB), there are plenty of images to illustrate the article. I have looked at the images used and they are all someone's own photographs.
Overall:
Conclusion: A well-written article. Not all good articles need to be long. Sometimes, the best articles are the ones which are concise, yet detailed, which is what this article is. Trillfendi, congratulations man. Good job. Mgasparin (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment on the review[edit]
I have concerns with how fast and drive-by this review is, especially for a subject with quite a bit of political controversy surrounding it. Since I wrote much of the article, I can't review the article, but I do suggest getting a second opinion before declaring victory on this one. Mgasparin, I highly suggest that you gain more experience with GAs before conducting reviews. SounderBruce 21:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- SounderBruce, if you would like a second opinion, I am more than willing to change the review. Personally, I disagree with your concerns about the brevity of the review. I had read through the article and am quite familiar with the guidelines presented here. I don't think you have to write paragraphs about the article in the review, but I also know that you should offer some comments to explain your reasoning, which I believe I did.
- If there is anything that is unclear in how I reached my conclusions, I will gladly explain it. Thank you. Mgasparin (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)