Jump to content

Talk:Bryant Park Studios/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 13:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another near Good Article

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

The article is nearly a GA status. I mostly have some nitpicks/questions listed below
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    1. This is main area of changes, see below for a bullet point list of prose nitpicks
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    I thought I caught the discrepancy of 10-12 stories, but saw you added a note about this.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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):
    All quality and freely licensed images
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    With some nitpicks mentioned below, and a possible discrepancy in sources around floor count, there are some things that need to be adjusted before this becomes GA.

Prose nitpicks

[edit]

(Forgot to add my signature) Happy editing Epicgenius ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: Thanks for the review. I have addressed all of these comments now, and I fixed all but two of these, which I think may need clarification. Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius you're right re ordering, I misread the letters. Regarding '-' versus 'and' I won't die on that hill, since it's correct either way. I prefer consistency in general, and also 1900s and 1910s to me implies you're discussing specific decades, whereas it is a range of 10 individual years. With 1920s-1960s it's going to be ambiguous whether we're discussing 4 decades increments or 40 years. I will pass the article as GA, but it's up to you whether my argument was convincing or not. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.