Talk:Program for Action/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lovinne (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Planning to do GA review. At first glance, the article looks good. I will update soon.


 * Thank you for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Very well written. Some minor errors corrected. Under the "63rd street subway" heading, the list has fragment sentences, but I think it's pretty clear that those serve as titles.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Plenty of reliable sources, books and historical news articles alike. Consensus from multiple references.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Broad, fact-based coverage. Lots of detail, but it's relevant.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I think the images could be bigger.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Nicely done!
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Nicely done!