Talk:First Battery Armory/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

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to review this over the weekend. I don't see any errors or difficulties on a preliminary read-through; this should be a fun read as always for your articles. Generalissima (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Okie dokieee let us begin.

#1: Well Written

Lede

No problems here, looks good.

Site

Also good.

Architecture

You missed an "and" in one sentence but I fixed this. Otherwise good to go.

History

Don't see any mistakes or prose issues here.

1A:

1B:

No Original Research

The article is very well-cited (inline, of course), and uses SFNs as recommended for longer sources. All sources use appear reliable. I don't see any evidence of copyvio, and earwig returned nothing concerning.

Only concern; the New York Times alone has an ISSN number, but other papers such as the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and Press and Sun-Bulletin. You don't need them, but you do need to consistently use them one way or another. (I would personally suggest just removing the ISSNs from the NYT cites because no one will confuse it with another paper.)

I checked a couple cites to make sure they were represented well;

36: National Park Service 2013, pp. 8–9.

Checks out.

65 A & B "Naval Reserve Armory Site at Foot of 43d St". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. February 18, 1900. p. 4.

These both check out.

72: "Armory for First Battery". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. February 8, 1901. p. 1.

Mostly checks out, but I'm pretty sure it says 120,000$, not 125,000$. Easy mistake with the low quality scan, so I corrected this.

93: "Field Artillery Changes". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. May 23, 1913. p. 8.

Checks out.

122: Huff, Richard (June 19, 1994). "NYTV: Where to find the stars among us in television city

Also checks out!

2A:

2B:

2C:

2D:

3: Broad in its coverage

Yep! This seems like good quality coverage. I don't see any cruft, and I don't see anything a viewer would reasonably wonder about the building that isn't covered.

3A:

3B:

4: Neutral

I see no violations of a NPOV.

5: Stable

No evidence of any edit warring, etc.

6: Imaged

All images are CC, captioned, have alt text, and are generally relevant.

6A:

6B:

General overview

Really, as soon as you standardize your citations, it's good to go! Great work as always on the article. Generalissima (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Generalissima. I've formatted these citations now. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good - everything is good to go! Generalissima (talk) 16:18, 8 January 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.