# Talk:Program for Action

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)

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

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)
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.
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.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Broad, fact-based coverage. Lots of detail, but it's relevant.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Nicely done!