Talk:National Debt Clock/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please make the "Similar projects" section more detailed?
 * "There also exist various debt tracking resources online." - Cite please. --Edge3 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking for more material on similar projects to incorporate. I originally left the sentence about the online resources unreferenced as I deemed it uncontroversial / self-evident. A secondary source for that assertion may be hard to come by, but I'll see what I can do. For the time being I've added an explanatory footnote . --78.34.110.166 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sentence does seem uncontroversial, doesn't it? You can leave it as it is, then.--Edge3 (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Just a small update here: I've found several suitable sources for more on similar debt clocks and other projects inspired by the NDC. I'll drop a note once I've expanded the section with the help of those sources. --87.79.182.211 (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done . I've decided to focus on the AMD campaign as the most intriguing example because the comparison isn't reduced to "running total on a billboard of some kind". AMD imitated the NDC project to the extent that their ad campaign was thematically centered around "raising awareness on a critical issue". (AMD even put up one of their billboards near Times Square, which is also noted in the BusinessWeek article, but I left that detail out in order to avoid losing focus.) --87.79.182.211 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks great. I shall now check grammar and sourcing.--Edge3 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful edits! (Thanks also to admin user:Xavexgoem for watching the article :) I did edit into your changes in two places; the reasoning for those formulations is based on the BusinessWeek article and futile attempts at locating a recent source on the AMD campaign., --78.34.98.119 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "the clock was unplugged and covered with a red, white and blue curtain in September 2000, with the national debt standing at roughly 5.7 trillion dollars" - The details here aren't supported by the source. --Edge3 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what happened there, I suspect that I myself messed it up in an earlier formatting spree. At any rate, I've placed a reference to the proper source and removed the other one . --78.34.205.234 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"on a Durst building at 1133 Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Avenue)" -- That's in New York Times 2006: "It is perched these days on the side of a Durst building at 1133 Avenue of the Americas, near 44th Street." (The above are the same sources referenced in the article.) The bit about the building having been replaced by One Bryant Park is easily verifiable, although I haven't so far found it written down like that in an article. One Bryant Park is located on Sixth Avenue between 42nd and 43rd Street, opposite Bryant Park; that's the exact spot where the first clock was mounted on a different building, before it was replaced. However, it's also mere trivia and I wouldn't mind removing it. --78.34.205.234 (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "the building has since made way for One Bryant Park. An updated model, which could run backwards, was installed one block away on a Durst building at 1133 Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Avenue)." - I can't find this info in the sources either. If I just missed the info when I skimmed the sources, let me know. --Edge3 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A note on my sourcing concerns above: the Good article criteria require reliable sources only for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Since the statements listed above don't fall under any of these categories, I'm not requiring that you add new sources. However, I do ask that you remove sources that don't support the information provided. --Edge3 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "updated model, which could run backwards" -- That's in the China Daily article: "'It wasn't designed to run backwards,' Douglas Durst explained. [...] In 2004, the old clock was torn down and replaced with a newer model which had optimistically been modified to run backwards should such a happy necessity arise."

I'm now passing the article. The sourcing issues, in my opinion, are very minor and don't violate the good article criteria. Keep up the good work!--Edge3 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)