Talk:Apple Bank Building/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 22:28, 26 June 2022 (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 exceptionally well written. I found a few mistakes though. See below for further comments
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
19% similarity found on earwig, but manually verified not an issue
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Yes freely licensed with CC 4.0 SA or public domain
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

MDCCLIX should be MDCCCLIX (missing a 'C')
The caption in Wikipedia are all excellent, but one photo showing a residential view with incorrect description on Commons: it should state 2112 Broadway as visually depicted, even if the main building entrance is 2100 Broady
Wikilink Anti-German sentiment
In one case an online sources exist, it would be nice to link to them. ie A little bit lauder. It still can be linked, even though WP:NYPOST discourages its usage. In this case, I think it's warranted/acceptable to keep. All in all, an excellent article with some minor changes to implement. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah, thanks for the review and sorry it took so long for me to reply. I did not see the comments until now. I'll work on these shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah, it looks like these changes were implemented. (Courtesy ping due to the length of the review) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie thank you for pinging me. I have a reputation as not being reliably responsive on GA reviews, but in this case I wasn't pinged about implemented changes till now. Thank you for that, and of course, if I was pinged/don't respond after a reasonable period, I always encourage others to boldly take-over/ping again. My tardiness shouldn't hinder anyone else. More pertinently, congrats on another GA! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius forgot to ping! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]