Talk:Park Avenue Viaduct

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Park Avenue Viaduct/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 10:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it 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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: (2nd opinion by Lee Vilenski)

I will go for a 2nd opinion to avoid any mistakes, because I am still learning.

Comments WP:CITEKILL in Expansion section. No more issues in the article. Congrats.

Did you know nomination

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 97198 (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Park Avenue Viaduct facing Grand Central Terminal

• ... that the Park Avenue Viaduct (pictured), designed to take traffic around New York City's Grand Central Terminal, caused gridlock soon after opening? Source: NY Times 1928
  • ALT1:... that New York City's congested Park Avenue Viaduct (pictured) was expanded as part of an agreement with the New York Central Railroad, which constructed its headquarters above the viaduct? Source: NY Times 1928
  • ALT2:... that the Park Avenue Viaduct (pictured) turned Park Avenue "from an inconvenient local street to the most modern highway in New York"? Source: NY Times 1989

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Indian locomotive class WDG-4G
• Comment: I may add more hooks later

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 14:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC).

• :REVIEW COMPLETED - The following review was completed by Thats Just Great

QPQ for Indian locomotive class WDG-4G

Article promoted to Good Article status on July 15, 2020

NPOV

Image in the Public Domain - Permission: CC-BY-SA-4.0

Hook is interesting, short enough and sourced with Refs [44] and [56]

AGF on offline sourcing with Ref 56

Hook ref [56] is behind paywall taken AGF. [44]sourced to Pg6 :"strangling the essential flow of this midtown commerical hub"

Earwig @ Toolserver Copyvio Detector found no copyvio

GTG -- Thats Just Great (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)