Talk:Central Saint Giles/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Central Saint Giles/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Saint Giles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?
2. :A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: {{GAList/check|yes}}
3. ::
4. :B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: {{GAList/check|yes}}
5. ::
6. Is it verifiable with no original research?
7. :A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: {{GAList/check|yes}}
8. ::
9. :B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: {{GAList/check|yes}}
10. :: See References section below. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
11. :::Issues fixed. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
12. :C. It contains no original research: {{GAList/check|yes}}
13. ::
14. :D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: {{GAList/check|yes}}
15. :: Ran copyvio tool and found no problems. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
16. Is it broad in its coverage?
17. :A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: {{GAList/check|yes}}
18. ::
19. :B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): {{GAList/check|yes}}
20. ::
21. Is it neutral?
22. :It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: {{GAList/check|yes}}
23. ::
24. Is it stable?
25. : It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: {{GAList/check|yes}}
26. ::
27. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
28. :A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|yes}}
29. ::
30. :B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|yes}}
31. ::
32. Overall:
33. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|yes}}
34. ::I like the fact that the writer/s gave the history of the location, not just the present structures built there. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Several references are deadlinks - they will have to be fixed for the Review to proceed.

• elevator count ref (in infobox): http://www.centralsaintgiles.com/building-specifications.php - looks like an internal URL has been changed, this ref either needs to be updated or changed to a different URL
• Ref #7 is dead - http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=3914
• Ref #23 is dead - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23839372-you-may-need-to-show-the-colour-of-your-money-at-central-st-giles.do redirects to http://www.standard.co.uk/markets/article-23839372-you-may-need-to-show-the-colour-of-your-money-at-central-st-giles.do so this also needs to be corrected.
• Ref #22 is dead - http://www.building.co.uk/news/piano%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98floating%E2%80%99-scheme-hits-the-right-note/3109723.article redirects to http://www.building.co.uk/Pagenotfound

{{ping|Shearonink}}, thanks very much for doing this review. I've updated all four of the above links. Prioryman (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

:{{ping|Prioryman}} I went ahead and fixed the one remaining did URL (that 'color of money' one). Oh, and, by the way, congrats - it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)