Talk:Program for Action

Orphaned references in Program for Action (New York City Subway)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Program for Action (New York City Subway)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nytimes":

• From New York City: Berger, Joseph (July 19, 2010). "Reclaimed Jewel Whose Attraction Can Be Perilous". New York Times. Retrieved July 21, 2010.
• From List of New York City Subway yards: Kennedy, Randy (January 21, 2003). "TUNNEL VISION; Next Stop, 'Twilight Zone' (a k a 76th St. Station)". The New York Times. The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2014.
• From K (Eighth Avenue Local): Big Changes For Subways Are to Begin
• From Beacon, New York: Martin, Douglas (2013-07-11). "Toshi Seeger, Wife of Folk-Singing Legend, Dies at 91". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-08-07.
• From Archer Avenue Lines: Johnson, Kirk (1988-12-09). "Big Changes For Subways Are to Begin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-05.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Program for Action. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot11706.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Program for Action/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lovinne (talk · contribs) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Planning to do GA review. At first glance, the article looks good. I will update soon.

Thank you for taking this up.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Very well written. Some minor errors corrected. Under the "63rd street subway" heading, the list has fragment sentences, but I think it's pretty clear that those serve as titles.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Plenty of reliable sources, books and historical news articles alike. Consensus from multiple references.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Broad, fact-based coverage. Lots of detail, but it's relevant.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I think the images could be bigger.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nicely done!