Talk:Broadway Limited/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 23W (talk · contribs) 02:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Review (after a month!)

@Mackensen: Apologies for the appallingly long wait; I'll have a review soon. 23W 23:26, 10 January 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• There's one {{citation needed}} tag in the Pennsylvania Railroad section.
• ... described by a PRR brochure as "cheerful, spacious...richly appointed for leisure with deep, soft carpets...latest periodicals are in the libraries.: needs a closing quotation mark; the ellipses should either have spaces on both sides (if an omission) or a single space following the next word (if present in the citations) per MOS:ELLIPSIS.
• train #29 should be turned into train no. 29 per MOS:NUMBERSIGN.
• Toolbox tools showed no bad signs, so I think we're okay.

Nicely written and decorated article. Not much needs to be done. Sorry for the abysmal wait; bit off more than I could chew. 23W 07:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Fixes made; no worries about the delay. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks good! I made the following copy edits (hopefully they're correct, otherwise please revert them). Passing. 23W 20:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)