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

Reviewer:Sammi Brie (talk·contribs)06:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review in progress

GA review (seehere for what the criteria are, andhere for what they are not)
It isreasonably well written. a(prose, spelling, and grammar): b(MoS forlead,layout,word choice,fiction, andlists): It isfactually accurate andverifiable. a(references): b(citations toreliable sources): c(OR): d(copyvio andplagiarism): It isbroad in its coverage. a(major aspects): b(focused): It follows theneutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It isstable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated byimages, where possible and appropriate. a(images are tagged and non-free images havefair use rationales): b(appropriate use withsuitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• "client is" → "client was"
• Add hyphen in "mid-2013"
• labelled → labeled (use American English)
• of a former plasma donation center and Arby's restaurant — since you reference the former, change toof the former plasma donation center and an Arby's restaurant

• References are archived.
• Good sourcing with secondary sources plus primary sources to fill in some gaps in coverage.
• Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. (Including the first one, a still from a CC-licensed YouTube video!)
• Earwig tool percentages are nice and low.
• Quite stable: nominator is only sizable contributor except for one image and one minor edit.

Carbrera, this will pass just as soon as the copy changes are made. At 674 words, this is a good example of a "small-format" GA while still meeting both parts of criterion 3.Sammi Brie (she/her • t •c)06:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the copy changes above in light of Carbrera's current situation: seeTalk:Saks Fifth Avenue flagship store/GA1. It would be in poor form to deny a GA for four copy changes when the editor's attention is understandably elsewhere.Sammi Brie (she/her • t •c)21:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]