Talk:World Trade Center (2001–present)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: CookieMonster755 (talk · contribs) 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Initialization
[edit] Comment: Hi – thank you for nominating World Trade Center (2001–present) to be a Good article. I will be accessing this article against the six GA criteria, to see if it is qualified to have GA status. If there are specific changes needing to be made in order to meet the criteria, that will be listed. As reviewer, I will do my best to work with the nominator to get this GA review finished and any concerns regarding the article addressed if needed. Due to the scope and size of the article – as well as the upcoming New Year's Day, it may take 7-9 days to complete this review. Please bare with me. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me below, or on my talk page. Best regards, CookieMonster755✉ 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Note: For ethical reasons, I want to disclose that I have worked on articles related to the World Trade Center in New York City, including but not limited to Twin Towers 2 and One World Trade Center. Good article policy states that you cannot review articles that you have significantly contributed to. I have not significantly edited or contributed to this article, therefore I should be in good standing with policy. Thank you. CookieMonster755✉ 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Hi epicgenius, so sorry for the delay. I promise I will have this review done by the end of the week. Got back from holiday, and have been hit with things to do. CookieMonster755✉ 02:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Criteria
[edit]A good article is—
- Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
- 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) 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);[2]
- (c) it contains no original research; and
- (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. [4]
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: [5]
- (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
Review details
[edit]Detailed review
[edit]- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | The article is well written. The prose is neutral, encyclopedic. Spelling and grammar is correct, sentence structures are correct. No issues here. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | The article meets MoS criteria. |
Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
The article is written in a neutral tone, no sections or text are written in a bias manner. Due weight is given to the article information. Pass. | Pass |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
There are no recent edit wars, light vandalism that has been reverted. No significant changes due to edit warring. Looks good. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | I have checked all images. They all have correct tagging, either a user uploaded it or it is from Flickr. One photo, the WTC logo is a fair-use image that has a correct and justified fair use rational and is low resolution. Perfect. | Pass |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | All images have suitable captions. However, this image is used twice in the article, under § Planning and under § Significant progress. One of those duplicate images needs to be removed. |
Pass |
Detailed analysis
[edit]This is a detailed analysis of each paragraph against the six GA criteria. Suggestions and problematic things will be detailed here.
Detailed analysis
|
---|
Lead and infobox
That is all for the lead and infobox. Looking good! CookieMonster755✉ 21:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Original towers
Destruction
Cleanup
Those are all the comments I have for the § Original towers section. Thanks, CookieMonster755✉ 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Comment: @Epicgenius: Hi, I am sure you are monitoring this page, but just wanted to let you know I have been leaving preliminary feedback. Still working on criteria 1) Well written – I will be finishing that up soon. Thank you. CookieMonster755✉ 21:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Controversy and criticism
Rebuilding
Significant progress
Memorial and museum
Retail space
Transportation Hub
Performing Arts Center
Liberty Park and constituent structures
Fiterman Hall
Logo
References
Bibliography
External links
|
Result and closing comments
[edit]Result
[edit]Result | Notes |
---|---|
Pass |
Closing comments
[edit]- Congrats, @Epicgenius: This article officially passes GA criteria, and will be featured as a good article. Another job, well done. CookieMonster755✉ 14:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]- ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
- ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
- ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
- ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
- ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
- ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.