Talk:Mount Vernon Triangle Historic District

Possible sources

APK whisper in my ear 21:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Place Nomination Form - Mount Vernon Triangle Historic District, NPS, Peter Sefton & Kim Williams, September 30, 2005 "Mount Vernon Triangle", DC Historic Preservation Office, Kimberly Prothro Williams "The DC Historic Alley Buildings Survey", DC Office of Planning, Kim Protho Williams, 2014 "District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites", District of Columbia Office of Planning – Historic Preservation Office "Barren Tract in D.C. Set for Rejuvenation; Alliance Targets Mount Vernon Triangle", WaPo, Debbi Wilgoren, March 28, 2004 "Mt. Vernon Triangle Edges Upward", WaPo, Dana Hedgpeth, April 3, 2006 "From seedy to sought-after; Amid development push, Mount Vernon Triangle becoming urban village", WaPo, Will Smith & Mark Wellborn, January 30, 2010 "Strip Club, Nearby Buildings Collapse in Northwest D.C.", NBC-4, Mila Mimica, May 2, 2014 "Crews Taking Down Rest of Partially Collapsed Building at 5th and K St, NW", PoPville, Dan Silverman, May 3, 2014 "This new building includes parts of three old buildings", Greater Greater Washington, Rachel Davis, August 25, 2017 "Mount Vernon Triangle gets ringing endorsements from the people who live there", WaPo, Harriet Edleson, November 30, 2017 "A D.C. strip club reopens to a changed neighborhood — of high-end condos and artisanal toast", WaPo, Alan Neuhauser, June 25, 2018 "Movie Theater, Marketplace, Dog Run: The Design Options for a Downtown DC Alley", DC UrbanTurf, Nena Perry-Brown, June 19, 2019

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Vernon Triangle Historic District/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JackFromReedsburg (talk · contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I'll leave some more in-depth comments later. 00:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   2 images have fair use rationales, but other than that all are in a compatible CC license

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

The article is well written with good sources. It is well illustrated. Copyvio check came up clean, and the only potential issue was a quote. "Table of contributing buildings" may be better titled as "List of contributing buildings", but at that point its just personal preference. 2 images have fair use rationales, both of the demolished buildings. It would be nice to have a "NRHP in Washington D.C." navbox on the bottom, but is not absolutely required. I'm not seeing anything that would prevent this article from becoming a GA, so I'll be promoting it. JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 01:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to review the article. APK whisper in my ear 20:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)