Jump to content

Talk:220 Central Park South/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial impressions

[edit]

I'll review this article, first impressions are pretty good. Expect a full review soon. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    The phrasing on "A motor court with a porte-cochere, where vehicles could drop off and pick up residents and their guests, is alongside the two wings of 220 Central Park South." is pretty passive-voice. Other than that the prose is pretty good.
     Done
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead is well-written and doesn't include cites (appreciated, for non-controversial claims). The article looks fine overall. I don't quite understand why you chose to use {{rp}}, but that's just a stylistic choice and obviously allowed in the MOS.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    The referencing is quite good. I could not find statements not backed up by refs.
    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:
    Some content is supported by primary sources, like "220 Central Park South Garage Environmental Assessment Statement", but this is not done excessively, nor in controversial areas.
    Yeah, it's hard to find non-primary sources for some claims. However, in this case I didn't consider the NYC government to be a primary source, as they're not directly connected to the subject. In this case, the government is participating as a third party. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    See above. No original research that I could find.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Somewhat iffy paraphrasing detected with Earwig's Copyvio Detector comparing to "The inside story of the world’s most profitable condo". Not really a clear copyvio or anything, but the phrasing is closer than I would like.
    I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Article clearly covers main aspects of the topic.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Level of detail is reasonable.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No issues here.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No issues here.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Licensing on File:220cpsdec13.jpg is a bit iffy. The source is "www.yimbynews.com" which is currently a deadlink. If you can find evidence that this was originally published under cc-by-sa 3.0, then there's no issue, but I don't see where that is.
    I've removed it. There's a good chance this is a copyright violation. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Illustrations are good.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Article is well-written and very close to passing, but there are just a few issues to address. If no action is taken within seven days, I'll have to fail the article - if the issues are addressed adequately, I'll pass it. Feel free to ask me any follow-up questions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elliott321: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, passing. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]