Talk:White House to Treasury Building tunnel
Appearance
White House to Treasury Building tunnel has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 27, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from White House to Treasury Building tunnel appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:White House to Treasury Building tunnel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Swpb (talk · contribs) 17:03, 24 February 2017 (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. | 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. |
All 2a issues addressed. —swpbT 14:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) | |
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. | ||
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. | 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)
- 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)
Pop Culture item
[edit]I'm not sure what the criteria is to get listed in that section, but a secret entrance to the White House was important to the finale of My Fellow Americans. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- The (unofficial) criteria are described in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. I'm not convinced this example meets the standard, so I've added it in a hidden comment. If someone can make the case with secondary sources that it should be mentioned, it can be made visible. —swpbT 14:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
- Do any of these change your mind? (Ctrl+F for "Kennedy" for easy locating). Argento Surfer (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Art and architecture good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- GA-Class Architecture articles
- Low-importance Architecture articles
- GA-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- GA-Class District of Columbia articles
- Unknown-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors