Talk:Asser Levy Recreation Center/GA1

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

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

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:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * In the first image, the caption "(2010)" doesn't seem good. Elaborate it.
 * "the north and a engine room on the south." - An engine.
 * "The building were particularly ornate" - building was.
 * 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)
 * I think an explanatory note will be good here.  Saha ❯❯❯  Stay safe    15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "separate entrances for each gender" - Any particular reason behind this?
 * I think an explanatory note will be good here.  Saha ❯❯❯  Stay safe    15:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have done this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "separate entrances for each gender" - Any particular reason behind this?

 Saha ❯❯❯  Stay safe  </b> </b> 17:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I have addressed these comments. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't see any other major issues. So, passing this. <b style="border:1px solid black"> <b style="color:#FF0000">Saha</b> ❯❯❯ <b style="color:#0043AF"> Stay safe  </b> </b> 20:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)