Talk:Lexington Hotel (New York City)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]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 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 01:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for the LWT reviews. I love NYC, wish I got to go more- happy to review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius, all done, fantastic work as usual. I'm stunned by the speed with which you revised articles in the last wikicup round, and I expect that trend will continue- very nice work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No words to watch, fiction, or lists; lead is well written, layout is appropriate | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Refs are placed in a proper "References" section | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Most citations are to reliable newspapers/magazines; scholarly citations, like a few journals and LPC reports, are also reliable | |
2c. it contains no original research. | I see no need for a spotcheck, article is well-cited and quotes are properly attributed- no concerns here | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no violations | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Covers the location, architecture, history, notable guests, and reception; all good | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No bias visible | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are properly CC tagged | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and captioned well | |
7. Overall assessment. |
- Thanks for the review @MyCatIsAChonk. I have done everything except for the inflation figures, which I hope to do within the next day or so. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again @MyCatIsAChonk. I've finally done the inflation figures now. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
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.