Talk:Kent station (Sound Transit)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 17:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
All of my discussions are open to discussion. Once complete, I will claim this review for points in the 2018 wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- 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:
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- no concern - AGF for the non-web sources
- 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:
- nothing obvious has been omitted
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- 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:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Is the historic NPR depot the 1889 station or the 1893 station?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Two minor things that I'm not comfortable addressing myself. Otherwise, this one's good to pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Thanks for the review. The 1893 depot is the one that survives, and I've tried to make it clearer in the prose. Also un-linked the bricks, but I think it's important to note since the first depot was just a wood building, like most of the other early stations for these towns. SounderBruce 22:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. The changes all look good and this one's ready to promote. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer: Thanks for the review. The 1893 depot is the one that survives, and I've tried to make it clearer in the prose. Also un-linked the bricks, but I think it's important to note since the first depot was just a wood building, like most of the other early stations for these towns. SounderBruce 22:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Two minor things that I'm not comfortable addressing myself. Otherwise, this one's good to pass. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
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.