Talk:Mount Vernon Triangle Historic District
Mount Vernon Triangle Historic District has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 31, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Possible sources
[edit]GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Vernon Triangle Historic District/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I'll leave some more in-depth comments later. 00:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- 2 images have fair use rationales, but other than that all are in a compatible CC license
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
[edit]The article is well written with good sources. It is well illustrated. Copyvio check came up clean, and the only potential issue was a quote. "Table of contributing buildings" may be better titled as "List of contributing buildings", but at that point its just personal preference. 2 images have fair use rationales, both of the demolished buildings. It would be nice to have a "NRHP in Washington D.C." navbox on the bottom, but is not absolutely required. I'm not seeing anything that would prevent this article from becoming a GA, so I'll be promoting it. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for taking the time to review the article. APK whisper in my ear 20:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- GA-Class District of Columbia articles
- Low-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
- Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
- GA-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Low-importance