901 New York Avenue 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen ( talk · contribs) 13:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! ⇒ T A P 17:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
both done. I managed to find the articles that I could♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
⇒ T A P 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, cited by Esquire magazine is correct I think "the Esquire magazine" would be incorrect,♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the being reviewed against WP:WIAGA or against personal preferences? The requirement for less offline references is certainly not a requirement of GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
If the articles can be accessed online, then its a good idea to link them, but as Pyrotec says, not compulsory. Vast majority of sources for Vlastimil Koubek are not found online.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Article is full of duplication. The statistics (height, volume, etc.) are needlessly repeated cruft. The restaurant section has much to say about Cajun cuisine, and precious little about architecture. It should be a separate section. This needs sharp-penciled editing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the last review was inadequately carried out, so I'm re-reviewing. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is substantially the same as reviewed at /GA1, however on 24th June 2012 one editor moved material from the Architecture and design section into a new section Ground floor and restaurant tenant; and also removed material from the Lead, which was then restored by the Nominator ( [1] see here). I will regard this article as "stable". Pyrotec ( talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I will review this from the first section of the article to the end of the review and then do the Lead last.
At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Better?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
A good article that's also a Good Article. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 901 New York Avenue. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
901 New York Avenue 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen ( talk · contribs) 13:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! ⇒ T A P 17:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
both done. I managed to find the articles that I could♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
⇒ T A P 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, cited by Esquire magazine is correct I think "the Esquire magazine" would be incorrect,♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the being reviewed against WP:WIAGA or against personal preferences? The requirement for less offline references is certainly not a requirement of GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 21:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
If the articles can be accessed online, then its a good idea to link them, but as Pyrotec says, not compulsory. Vast majority of sources for Vlastimil Koubek are not found online.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Article is full of duplication. The statistics (height, volume, etc.) are needlessly repeated cruft. The restaurant section has much to say about Cajun cuisine, and precious little about architecture. It should be a separate section. This needs sharp-penciled editing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 21:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the last review was inadequately carried out, so I'm re-reviewing. Pyrotec ( talk) 22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The article is substantially the same as reviewed at /GA1, however on 24th June 2012 one editor moved material from the Architecture and design section into a new section Ground floor and restaurant tenant; and also removed material from the Lead, which was then restored by the Nominator ( [1] see here). I will regard this article as "stable". Pyrotec ( talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I will review this from the first section of the article to the end of the review and then do the Lead last.
At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Better?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
A good article that's also a Good Article. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 901 New York Avenue. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)