Talk:Axa Equitable Center/GA1

Latest comment: 3 years ago by A. C. Santacruz in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply


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):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):  
    b (citations to reliable sources):  
    c (OR):  
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):  
    b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  


Comments

edit
  • Source 1 does not load for me.
  • Just as an aside, Hemingway Editor marks 24 of the 38 sentences in the Design section as hard to read. I'd agree with that, and recommend making the section more concise. Some measurements, for example, might be too detailed for the scope of the article.
    • I've actually tried to use this before, but it makes very weird suggestions like substituting "Equitable" for "Complex". In fact, I was able to downgrade the difficulty for a lot of sentences by substituting a placeholder name instead of "Equitable". Nevertheless, I have trimmed some of the more minute details. Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Writing

edit

Illustration

edit

Overall

edit

On hold, some fixes needed.
After changes: Almost gtg, I'll just go and see if I can find typos before I promote. A. C. Santacruz Talk 05:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply