Talk:IRT Powerhouse

IRT Powerhouse 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: March 11, 2021. (Reviewed version).

A fact from IRT Powerhouse appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 January 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the IRT Powerhouse was intended to be the largest power generating station on earth when it was built in the 1900s?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/IRT Powerhouse.

Wikipedia

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in New York City Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 5, 2009

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

IRT Powerhouse

... that the IRT Powerhouse (pictured) was intended to be the largest power generating station on earth when it was built in the 1900s? Source: "Interborough Rapid Transit Company Powerhouse". New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. December 5, 2017. p. 14.
- ALT1:... that the IRT Powerhouse (pictured) was designed as an aboveground focal point of New York City's first subway system? Source: Framberger, David J. (1978). "Architectural Designs for New York's First Subway". Historic American Engineering Record. p. 15.]
- ALT2:... that the IRT Powerhouse (pictured), which provided power to New York City's first subway system, was described in 1954 as "an engineering museum piece" due to its outdated equipment? Source: Kimmelman, Barbara (1978). "Design and Construction of the IRT: Electrical Engineering". Historic American Engineering Record. p. 316.

Reviewed: Cortinarius aurae
Comment: I'll add more hooks later

Created by Epicgenius (talk). Self-nominated at 04:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC).Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Epicgenius: Hi, I will be reviewing this nom. Great work, and I look forward to seeing the other hooks. Thanks. MSG17 (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 01:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The only issues were a word here or there and a couple of commas, but nothing serious.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
A content mill is the only major similarity in content; the 1979 LPC report has slightly higher similarity due to several organization names and at least one book title, but from there, there are no serious copyvio concerns. Spot checks in areas with online sources reveal no close paraphrasing issues.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article has logical organization and covers the building's architectural, technical and historic dimensions cleanly. The article's focus on the building helps a lot in avoiding focus issues.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Article has no neutrality issues and generally covers uncontroversial ground. There is good balance where differing points of view are presented.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Mostly minor correction edits since expansion.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images are all freely licensed or have had copyright lapse (the older illustration and photo). One is used in the infobox, and the others are used to illustrate specific areas of the article with accompanying captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Hard to ask much more of the page besides the missing word and comma fixes which I supplied. This article passes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic