Talk:North Shore Towers/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

With a few minor grammatical fixes, the article complies with MoS guidelines on structure, layout, flow and grammar. If I had to guess... (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article contains a plentiful bibliography of reputable third-party sources, and makes good use of them. If I had to guess... (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article looks like it provides a well-rounded coverage of the available encyclopedic information for the topic. If I had to guess... (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

THe article maintains a neutral tone all throughout. If I had to guess... (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The most immediate revisions in the article's history show that it has not been subjected to any edit warring for at least three and a half years. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The sole image illustrating the article at present is compliant with rules on licensing and usage. "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix that and maybe ask for some more pictures, because this article used to have multiple images. I have images, though, and may be able to upload them if necessary. Epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After a thorough reading of the article, and some minor fixes, I think it's ready to enter the realm of GA status. Further illustration is suggestible if/when achievable, but the article is of good enough quality that it need not be held back in wait of this. :) If I had to guess... (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]