Talk:58 Kent Street/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
If you disagree with any of my suggestions, please feel free to discuss the issue. Once complete, I will be claiming this review for points in the 2018 Wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Lead
- no concern - nice work.
- History
- "He ran the country's first pencil factory in Midtown East" - You mean it was the first pencil factory anywhere in the country, right? I suggest "In Midtown East, he ran the country's first pencil factory from..."
- Design
- "The serene courtyard garden" - Is this adjective necessary? If kept, I think it should be attributed to the writer of ref #2.
- "Though, common to startups,[12] the building follows an open plan " - Awkward structure here. I suggest "The building follows an open plan common to startups,[12] ... to share, though there are alternative..."
- Construction and opening
- "The architect gave a public tour..." - I suggest using Sondresen's name here.
- Lead
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- no concern
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- no concern
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- no concern
- C. It contains no original research:
- no concern
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- no concern
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- no concern
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- no concern
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- no concern
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- no concern
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- no concern
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no concern
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Some minor tweaks needed, but otherwise very well done. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
- @Argento Surfer, thanks! Addressed the above. Re: repeating the architect's name, I prefer to use the generalized term when the name isn't necessary—unless, of course, the issue is the ambiguity of the phrase "the architect", given the other designers involved. I don't think it would be, though. (I wouldn't expect the general reader to remember Sondresen as the architect several paragraphs later.) Anyway, added clarification. Appreciate the review, czar 02:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick responses. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Argento Surfer, thanks! Addressed the above. Re: repeating the architect's name, I prefer to use the generalized term when the name isn't necessary—unless, of course, the issue is the ambiguity of the phrase "the architect", given the other designers involved. I don't think it would be, though. (I wouldn't expect the general reader to remember Sondresen as the architect several paragraphs later.) Anyway, added clarification. Appreciate the review, czar 02:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)