Talk:Milam Building/GA1

Will review. MrLeopold (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. The lead seems a little sparse. At the very least it should include information about the 1972 drawing, but I would recommend also including a summary of information on the reception of the paintings.
   1. Indeed, also, I would put the builder of the building in the lead. MrLeopold (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milam Building has become a GA.

Note: article has not become a GA per above; reviewer is advised to gain far more experience on Wikipedia, especially in article writing, before attempting another GA review. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]