This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
A fact from Nieuwmarkt metro station appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 February 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: @Styyx: Good article. But earwig does report a possible copyright with mapcarta.com/W268782305 that should be adressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Onegreatjoke The Mapcarta url is actually about Waterlooplein metro station, and it immediately links to that article so this is actually a mirror (see their home page: "Discover open knowledge from OpenStreetMap, Wikipedia and more"). ~StyyxTalk? 00:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approve then. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this one. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
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:
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.
.jpg/1280px-Nieuwmarktbuurt_aerial_photo,_1975_(cropped).jpg)
- possible copyright.
@Styyx: Good article. But earwig does report a possible copyright with mapcarta.com/W268782305 that should be adressed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Approve then. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
