Talk:History of The New York Times (1945–1998)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 01:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lisha2037 (talk · contribs) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

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.	I have made minor edits, but the prose of this article is clear, succinct, and free of errors. As it is a piece about a very well established paper, the language may come of as too formal (example: using ire instead of anger); however, this is a Wikipedia article and not a piece within the NYT itself - as such discretion must be taken in how elaborate the language is. Direction should be heeded to simplify language so the average reader can digest a rather information heavy article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues here.
	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 paragraphs properly sourced. Redirects to main and relevant articles provided. Was thinking there should be a separate section for primary and secondary sources though.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fixed easy to resolve issues myself though changing narrative voice in some areas. Otherwise no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here.
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.	No issues here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All relevant images; good mix between pictures of people, locations, and documents. Only room for improvement would be having images showing how the digital age affected the newsrooms of the NYT as this era was the most pertinent to that matter.
	7. Overall assessment.