Talk:Nieuwmarkt metro station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 13:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Styyx Hey there, I've finished my review. I've listed a few things I'd like to be fixed below. If you can address those, I'd be happy to promote this; thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:37, 11 February 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.	Prose is all good and understandable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Complies with style guidelines.
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.	Bibliography and references list are correctly fashioned.
	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).	Citations are reliable; nearly all of them are in Dutch, but I'll trust that Google Translate provided accurate enough translations for me to understand it.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research as far as I can see.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no copyvios or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The station was renovated in 2011, which was delayed by almost a month If you can find it, why was it delayed? Added reason. All good now.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The idea came from a friend who joked about it. This doesn't seem necessary to include. I mean the ball is one of the most iconic works of the entire metro system so I would argue that the process behind it's creation is relevant. I did reword the sentence though. All good now.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit wars.
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.	No non-free content present; everything is licensed under CC; two images from the Dutch National Archives are properly tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant, but the captions for the photos under "Artwork" could use some work. Instead of describing them like it's MOS:ALT text, I think it should be the names of the artwork. That way, people reading "Artwork" can look at the caption and find the specific artwork they're looking for. In short, keep the current caption as MOS:ALT text, replace the caption with the artwork's names. Swapped ALT text and captions. Thanks, captions are good now.
	7. Overall assessment.	All set for promotion, thanks to Styyx for implementing the changes quickly.

• MyCatIsAChonk See table for responses. ~Styyx^Talk? 15:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Styyx Thanks for your quick fixes. I've promoted the article; thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)