Talk:Seeley G. Mudd Chemistry Building/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 23:25, 4 April 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:

   Both Duplication Detector and Earwig used

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Everything looks in line with MOS.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Good detail on funding, construction and architectural aspects

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Bobamnertiopsis is the primary editor. Only minor edits by others.

6. 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:

   All images are on Commons and appropriately licensed.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Good used of images, captions and placing within the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Somewhat surprised this fell through the cracks and lingered at GA nominations for the last 4 months. Nicely done article on this historical building at Vassar College. Good job. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)