GA Review

[edit]

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: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 20:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Sup! I'm going to be taking a look at this GAN as well. Any section marked with a  Working tag means that I haven't finished combing through it, but feel free to start making changes as you see them! Kncny11 (shoot) 20:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

[edit]

Description

[edit]

Recreation fields

[edit]

Red Hook Play Center

[edit]

History

[edit]

Site

[edit]

Works Progress Administration

[edit]

Decline and renovations

[edit]

References

[edit]

General comments

[edit]

Putting  On hold for now. Will check Earwig when possible.

@Kncny11: Thanks for another review. I've addressed all of these issues. For [2], the area is within the sidebar at the bottom right, but it is a History section so I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius Quick on the draw! Earwig is back up and checked out, so I think this one is good to go! :) Kncny11 (shoot) 21:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.