Talk:Northgate station (Sound Transit)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 08:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I will be giving this article a Review for possible WP:GA status. Shearonink (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- 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:
- 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:
- Such a pleasure to Review an article and find no referencing problems. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Ran the copyvio tool, no problems found. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Straightforward article/ Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Very stable. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- 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:
- Thank goodness for Sounder Bruce! HIs photos are a real help. Shearonink (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I am going to do a couple more deep proofreading/readthroughs to see if there's any issues I might have missed. Pending the finding of any problems, I'll probably be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- This article fulfills all the GA criteria. Going forward the only improvements I could suggest would be to flesh out the notability claims in the lead and to see if there are any sources that refer to the community reaction - good/bad - to the Transit Center & its construction. Shearonink (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- I am going to do a couple more deep proofreading/readthroughs to see if there's any issues I might have missed. Pending the finding of any problems, I'll probably be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
