Talk:General Electric Building/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: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 23:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are on day 2 of the epic epicgenius good article review drive. As usual, comments will be left later. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments:

Inline-ing the last few general references would be nice, but not required for GA.
All images are good in their copyright and well in their execution
Earwig report came up very clean
Article is well written, and the grammar is exquisite.
Lots of un-accessible sources, so I will AGF that those are accurate.
No self-published sources, so all are reliable.

🗿🗿🗿 good job, epicgenius on another good article. Signed, JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.