Jump to content

Talk:William H. Moore House

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

Sources

[edit]

--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Desertarun (talk18:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Moore House
William Moore House

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 20:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article length is fine (expanded fivefold recently), no major copyvio or plagiarism concerns (aside from quotes used), reliable sources are used. Image provided is freely licensed. I will go with the first hook which seems to be the most interesting.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:30, 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) 23:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Use mdy dates" goes below the hatnote.
  • Add alt text to every image being used.
  • "basement at the first floor" → "basement on the first floor"
  • Add a hyphen between "masonry bearing".
  • "Stokeses;" - shouldn't this be Stokes'?
  • "at a cost of $1 million" → "for $1 million"
  • "was placed on the ground floor" → "were placed on the ground floor"
  • Wikilink The New York Times.

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 done all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]