Talk:Malloch Building/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reveiw this very soon. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article but some of the language seems overly positive and therefore not encyclopedic, like using "graceful" a couple of times.
I question some of the sources. What makes these reliable sources?

MathewTownsend (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is easy: Therese Poletti is an expert on the subject of Art Deco buildings in San Francisco. She wrote the book Art Deco San Francisco: The Architecture of Timothy Pflueger. She is referenced in some 23 Wikipedia articles about architecture. Thus, her personal Timothy Pflueger Blog is an expert source.

Socketsite is fairly well respected in the San Francisco real estate business. The following Wikipedia articles cite Socketsite: One Rincon Hill, Fox Plaza (San Francisco), Hugo Hotel, Bayview-Hunters Point, San Francisco, and Weather beacon. The specific page used in the article was written by Socketsite editors rather than a guest writer.

ReelSF has an editor/writer/publisher known as CitySleuth, making the website not verifiable. However, it has some fine comparative images and it is being used in the article to cite the plot; a section of film articles that does not require a cite because the film itself is the cite.

The noircon.info website piece was written by Lou Boxer who was thanked for his contribution in the Duane Swierczynski book called Hell and Gone. That makes Boxer somewhat more influential than Joe Blow, and the fact that is supported is one that is already supported by Gary Goldstine's Picasaweb photo album: that photos exist showing a cutout of Bogart in the window. This is not very controversial.

The Locate Grave website is used for a not-very-controversial fact, the fact that John Rolph Malloch died in 1951.[1]

Hope that helps clarify the sourcing. I have removed the peacock term "graceful". Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

All the articles you mentioned above are badly referenced. Only one is a GA and it should probably be reassessed. MathewTownsend (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed text and cites from ReelSF, NoirCon and SocketSite. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. It's really a very nice article about an interesting building.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources:

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed:

B. Remains focused:
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fine review! Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]