Talk:The Battery (Manhattan)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Kosack (talk · contribs) 11:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on, will post review as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

Lead[edit]

"but then subsequently went into decline", then and subsequently are largely saying the same thing. You could probably drop then from this sentence.

Site[edit]

"In 1625-1626", use endashes for year ranges.
"the fort Fort James", double use of Fort is rather repetitive. Can we replace the first one with something, site maybe?
Link Hudson River in the second paragraph.
"the British Landing at Kip's Bay", I don't think the L needs to be upper case here.
"In 1808-1811", endash again.

General[edit]

There are quite a few instances of refs appearing out of numerical order, "from which the Battery got its present name.[10][11][1]" for example. Refs should be presented in numerical order to aid the reader.

20th century[edit]

"there was a plan to construct a federal government building from the site", should that be "on the site"?
"that U.S. Representative from Missouri, Richard Howard Ichord Jr.", that the U.S....? Also, does representative need the capital letter?

Castle Clinton[edit]

"and managed by the National Park Service" > is managed by...
Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island and SeaGlass Carousel are all linked in the one or two sections before this. Repeating links in close proximity is generally considered an WP:OVERLINK.

The Sphere, Hope Garden, and flagpole[edit]

"1940-1952", endash again.

References[edit]

Avoid shouting in ref titles, per WP:ALLCAPS.
Ref 70 doesn't appear to have the padlock that other Newspaper.com refs have.
Ref 124 needs an accessdate.

A nice article, well-written and detailed. There are a few points above to get started with from a quick run through. Placed on hold. Kosack (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: Thanks for the review. I think all of the above issues have been addressed. epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, there's little here to worry about and the GA criteria is comfortably met. Happy to promote. Kosack (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]