Talk:Program for Action/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lovinne (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Planning to do GA review. At first glance, the article looks good. I will update soon.

Thank you for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Very well written. Some minor errors corrected. Under the "63rd street subway" heading, the list has fragment sentences, but I think it's pretty clear that those serve as titles.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Plenty of reliable sources, books and historical news articles alike. Consensus from multiple references.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad, fact-based coverage. Lots of detail, but it's relevant.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I think the images could be bigger.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nicely done!