Talk:Surrogate's Courthouse/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 November 2020 (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:
 * On the whole very good. I found a doubled period near the end of "Upper stories", a missing wikilink on the first occurrence of New-York Tribune, and basically no other needed copyedits. These are so minor that I don't think they should block GA approval.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Article is not tagged as being in need of cleanup. Everything in the lead appears to be a proper summary of material expanded later, and does not need its own sourcing. No issues with peacock wording, fiction is irrelevant, and there are no incorporated lists. The overall organization of the article is logical and the standard sections that one would expect in any article are in their standard order.
 * 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:
 * References are consistently formatted in Citation Style 1 with short footnotes to a "sources" subsection for works that are repeatedly cited with different page numbers. This is a consistent citation style and one that is appropriate for the large number of references.
 * 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:
 * All references appear to be reliable sources, and there is no overreliance on any single source. Although some of this material appears to have been contentious at the time of construction, it is not so any more. All quotations are properly marked and cited.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * All content appears to be properly referenced. Spot checking found that the content of our article was accurately sourced to its references.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig found significant copying involving two web sites, but examining the dates and content shows that they copied from us rather than vice versa.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * No obvious topics missing.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Although the article does go into significant levels of detail about the decoration of the building and the politics of its construction, I think this level of detail is appropriate for its landmark status and the historical significance of those political disputes.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Most of the article is purely factual, with the opinions reserved for the "Critical reception" section, and properly attributed and neutrally described within that section.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * The article underwent a major expansion by the nominator last September. Both before and since then it has been quite stable.
 * 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:
 * All media are from commons. Some of them (e.g. the ceiling mosaic detail) display individual artwork rather than the overall building, which would be a problem for recent artworks, but given the date of construction I believe these works are all out of copyright.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * The overall level of illustration is appropriate to the article, and in sections where there is an obvious subtopic to be illustrated, an appropriate image has been chosen. The remaining images are a diverse enough selection to all be worth including, and their placement appears to be based on maintaining an overall uniform image density rather than logical connection to the text — this is a flaw, but a minor one. Most images are well below featured image quality but that is not an obstacle to GA. The one image that most catches my eye (and is noticeably higher quality than the others) is the aerial, "Surrogate's Court Splendor". You could consider moving that up to lead image; however there's no actual problem with the current lead image, which appropriately depicts the whole building as it would be seen from street level, so this would be purely a discretionary change rather than something that should affect the GA review outcome.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * A very smooth nomination. Almost nothing to do, and the only suggestions I have are so minor that I don't think approval needs to be delayed for them. Congratulations on a well-written article! —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)