Talk:WTC Cortlandt station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 19:47, 26 May 2019 (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): The article is readable and well-written. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The article is generally well-layed out and is effectively summarized in the lede.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): In general, it looks good. I note that there are some appropriately used primary sources and that nycsubway.org seems to be equivalent to a citation of a local historical group. c (OR): Some things are cited to images that I think would be best cited elsewhere. However, it is only a matter of opening the image and counting what appears, so I think it is acceptable. d (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues were found with Earwig.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): No major aspects seem to be missed. b (focused): Th article seems to be reasonably focused and give due weight to recent events.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: This article is about a non-controversial topic, which it presents with a NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: I found no recent edits indicative of content disputes.

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): All images are either appropriately licensed or used with appropriate non-free use rationale. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): All images have appropriate captions. However, none of the images have alt-text.

7. Overall: Overall, it is a very good article.

   Pass/Fail: