![]() | MetroHero has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology 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: August 18, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from MetroHero appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 July 2023 (
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
BorgQueen (
talk)
12:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by PlanetJuice ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/MetroHero; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 15:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Review coming right up!
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) (
not me) (
also not me) (
still no)
15:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No fiction, words to watch, or lists. Lead is well-written. Otherwise, no MOS violations. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Citations are in a proper "References" section |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Sources are mostly local newspapers or news channels- one Tweet is cited to the WMATA appropriately- all reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Quick spotcheck, choosing at random; AGF on locked sources (particularly Washington Post for me, it seems I've used up my monthly free articles!):
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no violations |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Covers the history, design, functions, shutdown, and reception of the app- all good. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No bias visible. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are properly PD/Gnu license tagged. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and properly captioned. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
![]() | MetroHero has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology 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: August 18, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from MetroHero appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 July 2023 (
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
BorgQueen (
talk)
12:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by PlanetJuice ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/MetroHero; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk ( talk · contribs) 15:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Review coming right up!
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) (
not me) (
also not me) (
still no)
15:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
|
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No fiction, words to watch, or lists. Lead is well-written. Otherwise, no MOS violations. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Citations are in a proper "References" section |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
Sources are mostly local newspapers or news channels- one Tweet is cited to the WMATA appropriately- all reliable. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Quick spotcheck, choosing at random; AGF on locked sources (particularly Washington Post for me, it seems I've used up my monthly free articles!):
|
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows no violations |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Covers the history, design, functions, shutdown, and reception of the app- all good. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No bias visible. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No edit warring. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Images are properly PD/Gnu license tagged. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and properly captioned. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |