Login
Login

Talk:Old National Library Building/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

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

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 04:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
  2. :A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: {{GAList/check|y}}
  3. ::
  4. :B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: {{GAList/check|y}}
  5. ::
  6. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
  7. :A. Has an appropriate reference section: {{GAList/check|y}}
  8. ::
  9. :B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: {{GAList/check|y}}
  10. ::
  11. :C. No original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
  12. ::
  13. Is it broad in its coverage?
  14. :A. Major aspects: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. ::
  16. :B. Focused: {{GAList/check|y}}
  17. ::
  18. Is it neutral?
  19. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
  20. ::
  21. Is it stable?
  22. : No edit wars, etc: {{GAList/check|y}}
  23. ::
  24. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
  25. :A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|y}}
  26. ::
  27. :B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
  28. ::
  29. Overall:
  30. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}
  31. :: Comment: Interesting article on a historical building, well structured with a generous amount of images, definitely a good article. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 04:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)