# Talk:Central Saint Giles

This review is transcluded from Talk:Central Saint Giles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am going to review this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and 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: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
See References section below. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Issues fixed. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Ran copyvio tool and found no problems. Shearonink (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I like the fact that the writer/s gave the history of the location, not just the present structures built there. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


### References
Several references are deadlinks - they will have to be fixed for the Review to proceed.

elevator count ref (in infobox): http://www.centralsaintgiles.com/building-specifications.php - looks like an internal URL has been changed, this ref either needs to be updated or changed to a different URL
Ref #7 is dead - http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=3914
Ref #23 is dead - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/markets/article-23839372-you-may-need-to-show-the-colour-of-your-money-at-central-st-giles.do redirects to http://www.standard.co.uk/markets/article-23839372-you-may-need-to-show-the-colour-of-your-money-at-central-st-giles.do so this also needs to be corrected.
Ref #22 is dead - http://www.building.co.uk/news/piano%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98floating%E2%80%99-scheme-hits-the-right-note/3109723.article redirects to http://www.building.co.uk/Pagenotfound
@Shearonink:, thanks very much for doing this review. I've updated all four of the above links. Prioryman (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@Prioryman: I went ahead and fixed the one remaining did URL (that 'color of money' one). Oh, and, by the way, congrats - it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)