Talk:New England Quarter/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
needs a bit more expansion on the lead to include some information on the controversies
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
some spots needing citations, one source is questionable
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

I'm not sure that all the images are necessary. A number of them don't seem to add much to the article. It's not something I'd fail a GAN for, but you might consider pruning the pictures a bit in order to increase the impact of the remaining ones. As it stands now, they all sorta look alike and blend together.

→Four removed. Having said that, I may put another in near the top: not sure yet. (I have a large collection of pix of the NEQ at all stages of development.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes http://www.skyscrapernews.com/ a reliable source?

→Removed all four instances in these four diffs. I believe the new refs should all be suitable. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current refs 32, 33, and 34 need to give publisher and last access date, outside of the link titles.

→Oops, good catch: I'd forgotten those last few. One was removed as above; the other two are done. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need a citation for the last sentence of "Location"

→I've removed it, as it doesn't add much and is likely to be impossible to source definitively. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need a citation for the first paragraph of Residential areas.

→The actions taken between these revisions show what has happened; I realised one part of the para was in the wrong place, so I moved that (and added a ref) and added refs to support the remainder of the para. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need a citation for the second sentence of the first paragraph of "Commercial areas"

→Sentence and para now covered by two refs from the design document. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some places you give imperial units as the main measurement, then a conversion to metric. In other spots, you give metric as the main measurement and a conversion to imperial. Stick with one main system for all the main measurementes.

→Two changed to show metric first; I think all now have metric first. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, you proabably want to decide where you are cutting off on the spelling out of numbers vs. putting them in numeral form. Sometimes you do "26" sometimes you do (twenty-six). Consistency is the key here, I don't care where the cut off is, just be consistent. (I suggest anything over 10 be in numerals, but that's just a suggestion).

→I think all instances have been found and dealt with. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

need a citation for the second paragraph of "Changes to the road layout." Also would not go amiss on the last two paragraphs of that section

→<ref name="URBED04"/> and <ref name="URBED05"/> cover these between them, although the details are spread across several pages. Added accordingly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, there are a lot of short one and two sentnence paragraphs. This gives the prose a very choppy feel. Suggest trying to go through and combine these paragraphs when possible.

→Agreed; have combined as far as I can, especially by de-bullet-pointing sections and converting them into prose. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need to expand the lead just a bit to include information on the criticisms and controversy section.

→Smallish para added. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review. I hope I have hereby addressed all your points. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]