Talk:History of The New York Times (1945–1998)

History of The New York Times (1945–1998) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 7, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media 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.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Newspapers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

GA Review

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of The New York Times (1945–1998)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 01:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Lisha2037 (talk · contribs) 20:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.	I have made minor edits, but the prose of this article is clear, succinct, and free of errors. As it is a piece about a very well established paper, the language may come of as too formal (example: using ire instead of anger); however, this is a Wikipedia article and not a piece within the NYT itself - as such discretion must be taken in how elaborate the language is. Direction should be heeded to simplify language so the average reader can digest a rather information heavy article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues here.
	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).	All paragraphs properly sourced. Redirects to main and relevant articles provided. Was thinking there should be a separate section for primary and secondary sources though.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fixed easy to resolve issues myself though changing narrative voice in some areas. Otherwise no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here.
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 issues here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All relevant images; good mix between pictures of people, locations, and documents. Only room for improvement would be having images showing how the digital age affected the newsrooms of the NYT as this era was the most pertinent to that matter.
	7. Overall assessment.

Add topic