Talk:Sixteenth Street Historic District/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gerald Waldo Luis (talk · contribs) 10:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Before beginning

Hello there, and welcome to the GA review page of Sixteenth Street Historic District. Remember to keep civil and assume good faith amongst each other. I will give my assessment on whether this article meets GA criteria and, if not, how it can; if you have one feel free to express it.

Quick fail detector

An article failed immediately as a GA if:

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria — Nope.
• It contains copyright violations — All content in the article is mostly original; no copyright violated.
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid — There is none.
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page — There are no recent edit wars.
• A reviewer who ha— Nope.

In conclusion, this article can be a GA. GeraldWL 11:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Consistency

Since the subject is American, and dates in this article uses mdy, I believe it should be consistent. GeraldWL 11:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is fine. Although there are many over-detailed stuff in it that can be trimmed/simplified. For example, the last sentence can be shortened to "Many notable architects have their works represented in the district, too." GeraldWL 06:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

All sources are reliable; no statements are original researches. I see, though, that many sentences are followed by excessive citations. Maybe move the citations to the claims needing it?

Broad and focus

This article stayed focus on the main topic and not deviating to off topics.

Neutrality and stability

The article is not biased, and there are no edit wars.

Prose

• "Architectural historian Laura V. Trieschmann describing the significance of 16th Street." Maybe "Regarding the significance of 16th Street, architectural historian Laura V. Trieschmann says"?

Other than that, the prose is good and complied with GAC.

MOS

All good here. The manual of style necessary for GA is complied. GeraldWL 10:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall

I consider this good stuff.  Passed

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed