Talk:The Apthorp/GA1

GA Review

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: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Part of the August 2023 backlog.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I did some mild copy editing for readability in some sections. Feel free to revert or change those edits if you disagree.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sectioned into two categories: notes and sources. Reference style appears to be consistent.
	2b. 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).	See below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Most sentences are followed by a citation. Those that do not have a relevant citation in the following sentence(s).
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Any possible copyvio appears to be properly attributed quotes.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Everything is related to the subject or is information needed to understand contextual details which influenced the building's construction.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Hard to be wholly negative or positive about a building. History of ownership criticism is sprinkled when relevant and backed up by a reliable source.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit as of this review last month.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Either scans of public domain material or original images taken by Wikipedians.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to subject, showing scans of floor plans and images of the building which are notable. Captions are also relevant and follow WP:CAP.
	7. Overall assessment.

Spot-checks

3, 11, 25, 38, 46, 59, 64, 70, 82, 95, 103, 107, 117, 125, 138, 148

Possible issues

2b

• Could you add a page numbers to 38 and 148? Probably not necessary, just a suggestion.

3a

• Amanda Seyfried appears to have an apartment here.

Thanks for the review @1TWO3Writer. I've added the page numbers for the two sources. Nice catch on Seyfried - these articles were published pretty recently (after I nominated this for GA). – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Good job! 123Writer ^talk 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

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.