Talk:White House to Treasury Building tunnel/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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)