Talk:Old Corner Bookstore/GA1

Preliminary checks

Done by the reviewer in conjunction with the opening of the review.

Preliminary checks for immediate failures and drive-by nominations.

· The nominator is a major contributor to the article. 94.1% authorship

· The article's images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. All images are free.

· The article does not get caught by Earwig for any obvious copyright violations. EarWig is being weird and saying there is a source with a 43.8% similarity rating but then saying that it can't find any text in that source when I try to do a comparison to it. I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that EG has not suddenly decided to start violating copyrights and go forth with the review. Oh yeah: the rest of the EarWig results are a-okay.

· The article is free of valid clean-up banners and does not have many clean-up tags. No banners no tags.

· The article is stable. The only non-bot edits to the article this year are the nominator's.

· The article, if it previously failed a good article review, is free of the problems that led it to do so. First nomination.

· The article is free of any other major problems that will cause it to obviously fail a good article review. Looks alright to me at a first glance.

Review template

You can choose to reply to comments here or in the "Free discussion" section below. The reply buttons here are functional.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

·You can hover over icons to see what they indicate.

1. Is it well written?

· A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.

· a. The prose is clear.

• ·

· b. The prose is concise.

• ·

· c. The spelling and grammar are correct.

• ·

· B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

· a. It complies with the manual of style guideline for lead sections.

• ·

· b. It complies with the manual of style guideline for layout.

• ·

· c. It complies with the manual of style guideline for words to watch.

• ·

· d. It complies with the manual of style guideline for fiction.

• ·

· e. It complies with the manual of style guideline for list incorporation.

• ·

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

· A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

• ·

· B. 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).

• ·

· C. It contains no original research.

• ·

· D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

• ·

Record of source spot-check

This is collapsed so the page doesn't get filled page with a record of spot-checks reporting that no action is required. Anything that is relevant for the nominator to know will also be placed outside of this box.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

· A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic.

• ·

· B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• ·

4. Is it neutral?

· A. It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

• ·

5. Is it stable?

· A. It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• ·

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

· A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.

• ·

· B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• ·

Overall: ·

Free discussion