![]() | 32 Old Slip 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: October 2, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from 32 Old Slip appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 September 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CaroleHenson ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
--I am starting the review today.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The article is well-written. It is not particularly long for a GA article, but it does adequately and concisely cover the subject from what I've read. There's good paraphrasing of the content. The lead sections, layout, etc. are in accordance with the Manual of Style. Inline citations to reliable, verifiable sources are used throughout the article; there's no indication of original research. The article is written from a neutral point of view and is stable. The one image is in the public domain and is licensed correctly in commons. There were some minor edits, so I hope you don't mind, I just went ahead and tackled them. It seems faster for everyone than making and working a list of little things.
There are some newspaper article topics that might be interesting to add for a "Further reading" section. It could be useful for expansion to a Feature article -- or just give readers a bit more to delve into if their interested.
The net-net of all of this is - I didn't find anything major or anything requiring clarification - yeah! It would be great if you could look over the copy edits and see what you think. The suggestions for a Further reading section is just that, a suggestion.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 09:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 32 Old Slip. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 32 Old Slip 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: October 2, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from 32 Old Slip appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 4 September 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: CaroleHenson ( talk · contribs) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
--I am starting the review today.--
CaroleHenson (
talk)
03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
The article is well-written. It is not particularly long for a GA article, but it does adequately and concisely cover the subject from what I've read. There's good paraphrasing of the content. The lead sections, layout, etc. are in accordance with the Manual of Style. Inline citations to reliable, verifiable sources are used throughout the article; there's no indication of original research. The article is written from a neutral point of view and is stable. The one image is in the public domain and is licensed correctly in commons. There were some minor edits, so I hope you don't mind, I just went ahead and tackled them. It seems faster for everyone than making and working a list of little things.
There are some newspaper article topics that might be interesting to add for a "Further reading" section. It could be useful for expansion to a Feature article -- or just give readers a bit more to delve into if their interested.
The net-net of all of this is - I didn't find anything major or anything requiring clarification - yeah! It would be great if you could look over the copy edits and see what you think. The suggestions for a Further reading section is just that, a suggestion.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 09:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 32 Old Slip. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)