Talk:2023 New York City parking garage collapse/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 10:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for nominating this article. I'll review it during the course of this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 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

• There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 31.0% in similarity.
• 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.
  • No major issues were found in the article. I've made some minor improvemenets: See Special:Diff/1244371791.
• Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
  • I'd recommend shortening the lede a bit. The article is overall really short, but the lede currently sits at three paragraphs and 293 words. I'll leave it up to you to remove whatever you think that is not important enough (e.g. "who was a 59-year-old and the manager of the garage").
  • The rest of the article complies with the 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.
• Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
  • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
  • No referencing issues.
  • Listed references are reliable.
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 25, 30, 31, 40–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
  • Copyvio already checked.
• Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
  • What did the Digidog do?
  • The rest of 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.
  • Optional: Add alt text to images.
  • Images are properly licensed.

Final comments

@Tails Wx: There are a couple of things to fix, and once they get addressed, I'll promote the article. The review will be put on hold for a week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: All done! Added some alt text to both images in the article as well. ~ Tails Wx 15:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good now, so good job. Promoting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll list the article at "Engineering failures and disasters" because the article was nominated under "Computing and engineering". Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 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.