Jump to content

Talk:Hamilton Fish Park

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk07:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 00:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is over 1500 words and meets expansion requirements. Body text is sourced aptly and the sources seem to be reliable. I will have to assume good faith on the ones where paid registration is required. I found no copyright violations and the writing is neutral. lullabying (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Short description goes at the top.
  • Add alt text to every image being used.
  • "restored again" → "restored"
  • "facades made" → "facades are made"
  • Remove the comma after "pool entrances".
  • "mayor Robert" → "Mayor Robert"
  • "bee reopened" - typo?
  • "a NYC Parks" → "an NYC Parks"
  • "wading pool; and" → "wading pool, and"
  • "at a cost of" → "for" (less wordy)
  • "New York City, it was" → "New York City, was"
  • Wikilink Edith Evans Asbury and Amy Sohn.

Progress

[edit]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks. I've fixed all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]