Jump to content

Talk:White House to Treasury Building tunnel/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Swpb (talk · contribs) 17:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Some commas should be added with non-restrictive clauses; I will be BOLD on that.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead is a concise summary, order of sections is correct, no words to watch, no issues with presentation of fiction or lists.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. There are some issues regarding whether, which, and to what extent sources support certain statements:
  1. The statement about using East Wing construction to hide tunnel construction from the public does not seem to be supported by Kessler or Klara; Seale provides some implicit support and should be cited here.
  2. The statement that the White House was "fragile" should be attributed.
  3. Lewinski is not mentioned by name in Plotz; the statement should be amended to refer to unspecified mistress(es) as supported by the source.
  4. Plotz doesn't support the "no photos" statement; this citation should be removed.
  5. The citation of Slovick to support the existence of the Riggs tunnel should be moved to just after that statement, i.e. after the second comma in the sentence.
  6. "BEP History" supports the existence of the Annex tunnel of the previous sentence, but it does not support the existence of multiple outward tunnels, only one. Just need to amend the statement.
  7. For 'Tunnel "Project ZP"', the USNWR article should be cited directly. Saltonstall doesn't support several statements in the paragraph, including the length of the tunnel and the lavatory entrance.
  8. Saltonstall only supports one meeting of Nixon and Reagan; statement should be amended accordingly or another source cited.
  9. Meltzer supports the entrance of the tunnel in a park, but not Lafayette Square specifically. This should be amended or another source added. The movie itself should probably be cited.
  10. Beins supports that there is a mention of the tunnel in WHD; saying the tunnel "features" in the film may be stretching the source. Again advise also citing the movie itself.
Those movies aren't appropriate sources for that content - see this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not alone, no – but that's not what I was suggesting. Including them in addition to the secondary sources definitely is advisable. —swpbT 14:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All 2a issues addressed. —swpbT 14:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2b. 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). All sources appear reliable.
2c. it contains no original research. The identification of the park in Dave as Lafayette Square may be OR; the cited source doesn't specify. If the movie itself or another source makes it clear this is Lafayette and can be cited, this will be a pass. Questionable statement removed.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. None apparent.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. History, design, related tunnels, and cultural references are covered. Physical details of the bunker from Klara would ideally be included either here or at Presidential Emergency Operations Center. Physical details of the tunnel design would ideally warrant more detail, but this may simply not be available. Neither gap is problematic enough to delay GA status.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). No focus issues.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No neutrality issues.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No major work is ongoing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Holding for the citation issues in 2a to be addressed; I'm confident that I'll be able to grant final passage quickly.

All 2a issues addressed; article passes all criteria.

Swpb - I think I've got all these changes. Please let me know if I've missed anything. DarjeelingTea (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I re-added the statement about Nixon, amending it to one meeting, which the source does support. —swpbT 14:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:White_House_to_Treasury_Building_tunnel/GA1&oldid=967093179"