Talk:Kings Plaza/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: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) 01:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually had this article watchlisted because I thought it was close to GA quality but needed a little more polish. Looks like it won't need that much more work before it passes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• @TenPoundHammer: Thanks for taking up the review. This is probably the fastest any of my articles has been picked up for a GA review. epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: It looks like you've addressed all my issues, so the article is good to go. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• @TenPoundHammer: Thanks, I appreciate it. It looks like you didn't add a date on the talk page, so I didn't receive a GA-Pass message. epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Wait, never mind. I received it. epicgenius (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2019 (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):

2. A few too many sections follow the same pattern of "In X, Y happened. In Z, A happened." I tried to edit a few, but if you could vary them a little more this would help. Other than a couple format tweaks I've already taken care of, the prose looks good.
   • Fixed some of these.
3. I also fixed uses of "summer 19xx" and "fall 19xx" per MOS:SEASON. Make sure you catch all of these.
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

5. I would recommend {{subscription required}} on the New York Times PDF sources.
   • Done.
6. The sentence " A significant renovation project begun in 2014..." is the only unsourced sentence I saw.
   • Added a source.
7. Source 15 ("CB 18 Approves Kings Plaza Bus Terminal Changes") is 404. It's also duplicated at source 20. Please combine the two and add a wayback URL if possible.
8. Source 17 (http://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/261050030100010_r2.pdf) is a bare URL. Please format.
   • Done.
9. Source 36 ("Pol Charges Mall Developer Has 'Unholy Alliance' With City") is 404.
   • Done.
10. Source 42 ("Ilaina Jonas, Reuters. "Macerich to buy two malls from Vornado and Vornado affiliate") is 404.
    • Done.
11. Source 43 ("Sears ya Later! Department store departing Kings Plaza, makeover to follow") is tagged as a permanent deadlink. Please fix.
    • Done.
12. Source 43 ("JCPenney Debuts Second Brooklyn Store") is 404.
    • Done.
13. Source 49 ("Police investigate Kings Plaza fire as arson") does not have a work or publisher credit.
    • Fixed.
14. It is broad in its coverage.

    a (major aspects): b (focused):

    Is there more info in the early years? There's nothing between 1970 and 1985. Were there any opening ceremonies? Did the mall host any notable events early on? What were some of the more notable inline stores in the early years, other than the first Sbarro? Compare Tri-County Mall or Swifton Center in this regard.

    • I added more about a parking fee controversy and a few more stores. There's not much info on stores, and there definitely weren't any notable events. epicgenius (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

15. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

    Fair representation without bias:

16. It is stable.

    No edit wars, etc.:

17. 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):

18. Overall:

    Pass/Fail:

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.