Talk:Briarcliff Manor Public Library/GA1

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

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 11:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Definitely broad, as it covers a large amount of history of the library, etc.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Significant amount (6) of images, which are relevant and help to illustrate the text.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A very comprehensive article. Worthy of GA status. Was enjoyable to review and read'
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Significant amount (6) of images, which are relevant and help to illustrate the text.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A very comprehensive article. Worthy of GA status. Was enjoyable to review and read'
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A very comprehensive article. Worthy of GA status. Was enjoyable to review and read'

Fixed and added a ref to the community center info. Thanks for adding those refs, I'm not sure why I left them out...-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  18:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was very fast.-- ɱ    (talk  ·  vbm)  22:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, it was that well-written that I could review it so fast!  Acalycine (talk /contribs) 05:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)