Talk:IRT Powerhouse

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Sammi Brie in topic GA Review

Did you know nomination

edit
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 (talk07:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

 
IRT Powerhouse

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and 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

edit
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)
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Mostly minor correction edits since expansion.
  6. 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.
  7. 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 • tc) 02:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Reply