Jump to content

Talk:Brownsville, Texas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Brownsville, Texas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 00:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Heya! Looks like this has been nominated for quite some time, so I'm going to try to take it up. —Bsoyka talk 00:53, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • Prose looks great to me!
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Complies with MoS
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Many good citations, no issues
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • All citations are from reliable sources
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Contains no original research
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • No copyvios from what I can tell
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Addresses main aspects clearly and concisely
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Focuses on the city and its history very well, doesn't really stray away
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Written with a very neutral and encyclopedic tone
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • No significant issues with edit warring, etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • All images are licensed with either Creative Commons or public domain
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • All images are relevant and have well-written, accurate captions
7. Overall assessment.

I believe a lot of great work has been put into this article, and it has great value for those who read it. As such, I am completing this review. This article is now a Good Article. —Bsoyka talk 02:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]