Talk:Asser Levy Recreation Center/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 12:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:
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:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
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:
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:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

In the first image, the caption "(2010)" doesn't seem good. Elaborate it.
- Done
"the north and a engine room on the south." - An engine.
- Done
"The building were particularly ornate" - building was.
- Done
In lead and infobox it says "built in 1905–1908". Whereas in the body "Built in 1904–06". Citation [12] also says 1904–06.
- The issue is because of conflicting sources, largely due to the National Park Service and Landmarks Preservation Commission citing a date between 1904 and 1906. However, several newspaper articles like the New-York Tribune actually give firsthand coverage of the bathhouse's opening in early 1908. In addition, the Real Estate Record said in 1905 that construction had just started. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think an explanatory note will be good here. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @ArnabSaha: Thanks, I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"separate entrances for each gender" - Any particular reason behind this?

 Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  17:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabSaha: Thanks for the review. I have addressed these comments. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any other major issues. So, passing this. Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 20:01, 22 March 2021 (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.