Talk:2 Broadway

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Epicgenius in topic GA Review

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 MeegsC (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

 
2 Broadway after renovation

5x expanded by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 23:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall:   A pleasure to bite another slice of the biggest apple. ALT2 is the most hooky, and has a solid gold reference from the grey lady. Wonderful quasi-abstract photograph as well. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA Review edit

This review is transcluded from Talk:2 Broadway/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

  • Short description goes at the top of the article.
  • Add alt text to every image being used.
  • "named as" - reword or simply remove "as".
  • "the 1​, R​ and ​W trains" - add a serial comma.
  • Remove the comma after "entrance on Broad Street".
  • "The work were" → "The works were" or "The work was"
  • Remove the comma after "thirty stories".
  • "during 1999" → "in 1999"
  • "to high demand" → "to a high demand"
  • Wiklink The New York Times.
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 these. Epicgenius (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply