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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Generalissima ( talk · contribs) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll try to review this over the weekend. I don't see any errors or difficulties on a preliminary read-through; this should be a fun read as always for your articles. Generalissima ( talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Okie dokieee let us begin.
No problems here, looks good.
Also good.
You missed an "and" in one sentence but I fixed this. Otherwise good to go.
Don't see any mistakes or prose issues here.
1A:
1B:
The article is very well-cited (inline, of course), and uses SFNs as recommended for longer sources. All sources use appear reliable. I don't see any evidence of copyvio, and earwig returned nothing concerning.
Only concern; the New York Times alone has an ISSN number, but other papers such as the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and Press and Sun-Bulletin. You don't need them, but you do need to consistently use them one way or another. (I would personally suggest just removing the ISSNs from the NYT cites because no one will confuse it with another paper.)
I checked a couple cites to make sure they were represented well;
2A:
2B:
2C:
2D:
Yep! This seems like good quality coverage. I don't see any cruft, and I don't see anything a viewer would reasonably wonder about the building that isn't covered.
3A:
3B:
I see no violations of a NPOV.
No evidence of any edit warring, etc.
All images are CC, captioned, have alt text, and are generally relevant.
6A:
6B:
Really, as soon as you standardize your citations, it's good to go! Great work as always on the article. Generalissima ( talk) 06:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)