Talk:Fordham Plaza, Bronx

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fordham Plaza, Bronx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304201625/http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/transportation/deck03b.pdf to http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/transportation/deck03b.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fordham Plaza, Bronx/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Drown Soda (talk · contribs) 22:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I'll do review of this article—I went to grad school at Fordham U. across the street and lived in the neighborhood for two years, so I'm rather interested in reading some of the history on this anyway. More later. --Drown Soda (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: That's pretty cool! Anyway, thanks for agreeing to do the review. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Review

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

Prose are generally clean and information communicated is easy to follow. I didn't catch any typos or major grammatical issues either; it is overall nicely written. The main issue here is not so much the prose but the way they are formatted in the History section—it's frankly too long I think to not be broken up into a few subsections, perhaps by era. This would help make the article far more easy to read.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

This all registers as stable and accurate based on the sources provided. The majority of citations are to the New York Times and other reputable publications. One caveat I have in regard to sources is that some portions of the article are possibly over-sourced, with blocks of four-to-six citations. I would suggest paring down some of these, unless the sentence requires multiple pieces of information from varying sources (and thus multiple citations); in that case, I'd either make sure the citations are located precisely at the end of the information they pertain to (so as to break them up a bit), or perhaps make a footnote to relocate them there (see Template:Note) so they are not taking up so much space in the body of the article. References look good though and there are no dead URLs.

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

The article sticks to the facts here, with a general and informative inclusion of key historical data as well as geography and stats. Weight seems fairly distributed throughout.

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

Yes-again, sticks to the sources. Language is unbiased--no peacocky words or anything of that nature (which wouldn't typically rear their head in a place article, but they can).

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

An overview of the edit history shows stability, even dormancy at times—it appears the article was untouched from March–September 2016, and only received edits a handful of times throughout 2017.

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

The photos are appropriate and appear to be properly cited and tagged. Given the length of the history section, perhaps another photo or two would be beneficial.

Overall: ✓ Pass

There are really only a handful of minor things that need to be done here it appears. The article at its core is well-written and cited, and the things that need attention are essentially all stylistic, pertaining to readability (see the comments on citations and prose). With these few things attended to, I feel very comfortable passing this. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Drown Soda: Thanks for the review. Sorry, I didn't notice it until now. I will fix these soon. epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've just looked this over with the paring down on citations and the subsection instatement, and I'm comfortable giving this a passing grade—as I said, the quips were really minor/stylistic more than structural or content-based. --Drown Soda (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)