Talk:220 Central Park South/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Initial impressions
I'll review this article, first impressions are pretty good. Expect a full review soon. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 18:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * The phrasing on "A motor court with a porte-cochere, where vehicles could drop off and pick up residents and their guests, is alongside the two wings of 220 Central Park South." is pretty passive-voice. Other than that the prose is pretty good.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead is well-written and doesn't include cites (appreciated, for non-controversial claims). The article looks fine overall. I don't quite understand why you chose to use rp, but that's just a stylistic choice and obviously allowed in the MOS.
 * 1) 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:
 * The referencing is quite good. I could not find statements not backed up by refs.
 * 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Some content is supported by primary sources, like "220 Central Park South Garage Environmental Assessment Statement", but this is not done excessively, nor in controversial areas.
 * Yeah, it's hard to find non-primary sources for some claims. However, in this case I didn't consider the NYC government to be a primary source, as they're not directly connected to the subject. In this case, the government is participating as a third party. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * See above. No original research that I could find.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Somewhat iffy paraphrasing detected with Earwig's Copyvio Detector comparing to "The inside story of the world’s most profitable condo". Not really a clear copyvio or anything, but the phrasing is closer than I would like.
 * I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Article clearly covers main aspects of the topic.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Level of detail is reasonable.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No issues here.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No issues here.
 * 1) 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:
 * Licensing on File:220cpsdec13.jpg is a bit iffy. The source is "www.yimbynews.com" which is currently a deadlink. If you can find evidence that this was originally published under cc-by-sa 3.0, then there's no issue, but I don't see where that is.
 * I've removed it. There's a good chance this is a copyright violation. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Illustrations are good.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Article is well-written and very close to passing, but there are just a few issues to address. If no action is taken within seven days, I'll have to fail the article - if the issues are addressed adequately, I'll pass it. Feel free to ask me any follow-up questions. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 12:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've addressed all these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, passing. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 15:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, passing. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 15:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)