Talk:Samuel Gompers Memorial

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Samuel Gompers Memorial. 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/20111007095617/http://www.thedctraveler.com/2008/08/monument-monday-samuel-gompers-memorial-statue/ to http://www.thedctraveler.com/2008/08/monument-monday-samuel-gompers-memorial-statue/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109171554/http://dcist.com/2007/08/15/super_size_samu.php to http://dcist.com/2007/08/15/super_size_samu.php

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) 11:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: APK (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 11:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for nominating this article. I'll have a look and review it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. APK hi :-) (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Initial comments

• It is possible that there is copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported 75.2% in similarity. Will analyse this in depth later in the review. See below
• There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
• The article is stable.
• No previous GA reviews.

General comments

• Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • "Not did he only found a major union" → "Not did he only find a major union"
  • "Amongst those" → "Among those"
  • "in 1955" is mentioned twice in "In 1955, the area surrounding the memorial was officially renamed Samuel Gompers Memorial Park in 1955"
  • "the memorial need immediate repairs" → "the memorial needed immediate repairs"
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • Use {{ubl}} inside the infobox instead of break (<br />) tags per MOS:NOBR.
  • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW guidelines. There is no fiction and embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED. Overall, the lede's length is okay, and it summarises the article, the article has appropriate sections, and there are no biased words in the article.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • All references are reliable.
    • Ref 17, 18, 20 and 21 are missing pages.
    • Optional:
    • Wikilink James Moore Goode author to Ref 2.
    • Wikilink Aviva Kempner author to Ref 13.
  • Spotchecked Ref 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • I do not see $117,408 being mentioned in Ref 11.
  • Checking potential copyright violations.
    • False positive. It picked up quotes.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • The article addresses the main aspects, and it stays focused on the topic.
• Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
  • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
• Checking whether the article is stable.
  • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
• Checking images.
  • Images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@APK: The review will be put on hold for a week. Once the issues are addressed, I'll promote the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: I think all of the issues have been addressed. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. The issue with ref 11 is that the nomination form is only accessible by downloading it. It's on the bottom of the page for ref 11. I added a note section for clarity. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good. Promoting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.