Jump to content

Talk:Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eteethan (talk · contribs) 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Grammar and spelling fine. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) In compliance. Pass Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Plenty of references, and no unreferenced facts. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) All sources checked, looks fine. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) The article is based on reliable sources. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) Checked with copyvio detector and none found. Pass Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) This article starts off broad and has a good summary of the topic... Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) ...and then it narrows down to talk about very detailed information about the subject. Pass Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    There's not many different viewpoints in this article, but it looks like there is no bias in this article. Neutral Undetermined
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Only recent edits are by one user. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) All images are free. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Images are fine. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Result: Promoted.

Discussion

[edit]

Please add any related discussion here.

Ok. I just checked it and it should be fine. I will try to get this review done today. Eteethan(talk) 12:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Streamline Moderne?

[edit]

Who determined it was Streamline Moderne? It doesn't look anything like Streamline Moderne. 209.137.134.50 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 2/16/2016[reply]

@209.137.134.50: My mistake. I meant to link to Moderne architecture (which currently redirects to Streamline Moderne), which is referenced by the GSA and HistoryLink, but it does not have an article anymore. I've changed all references to the style to "Modernist". SounderBruce 19:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]