Talk:Pelham Bay Park/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EggRoll97 (talk · contribs) 03:26, 17 June 2018 (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:
· · ·

Beginning Notes

To anyone watching this review, hello! I have noticed that the article has been denied once before, so the issues in the previous review are the ones that I'll mostly be looking at to see if they're resolved. I've marked some aspects of the criteria as being fine already, since there's some things that I can immediately determine from a quick look, and then the rest may take a while. Please put any discussion you might have here, I won't bite! Side Note: I've also checked a few of the things that take longer than a quick look. This article doesn't seem to have any major issues, I'll likely end up only needing to harshly review the parts that were failed in the first review. EggRoll97 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some Concerns

I have a concern about the article (the criteria that doesn't pass yet). For references, there's 3 references which spot my immediate attention, an example is found here. I did try to fix these minor errors, but I don't know enough about the syntax to fix them. If you or anyone else can, please fix them, or remove them as dead links.

I'll put the article on-hold for 7 days, when the issues are fixed, please reply below this comment, thanks! EggRoll97 (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EggRoll97: Thanks for doing the review. I have fixed all the references that were either dead links or not defined at all. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: No problem. That fixes all the concerns I had about the article, I'll be marking it as passed right now. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2018 (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.