Talk:Peck Building

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peck Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WikiFouf (talk · contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pencilsforall (talk · contribs) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I cool article. I'll add a table with comments and notes when I finish the review. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pencilsforall thanks so much!:) WikiFouf (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Spot check of sources:

1. Source [3] Can't access to assess
2. Source [4] in French

It appears to be largely English, still, it checks out.

1. Source [6] Can't access to assess
2. Source [7] Can't access to assess

Can be accessed through the Wayback Machine.

1. Source [11] in French

Checks out, the employee growth is telling.

1. Source [13] Confirmed information

Hi again- I'm asking for a second opinion primarily because I wasn't able to do a spot check of the sources that were in French. Hopefully the second opinion can read the French sources! Pencilsforall (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pencilsforall All good, thanks for your work! Some of these sources are accessible through the Wikipedia Library, by the way, it's a great resource if you haven't signed up:) WikiFouf (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

See my second opinion comments above. I've also clipped sources 3 and 6 for you to confirm, @WikiFouf. Good luck with the review! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser Didn't know you could do that (the clippings), thanks a lot! WikiFouf (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course! They're rather handy. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pencilsforall, did you mean to put this up for a second opinion? You didn't actually list it. You have to change "status" from "onreview" to "2ndopinion". -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: a little late, but chiming in nevertheless! Apologies, I changed the review status; looking back, it seems "Answering a second opinion" only applies to the original reviewer. On that front, @Pencilsforall: just checking in. If they don't reply soon, do you believe it's time for "Step 4a"? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser, that was my mistake actually, I didn't realize that the source check above was yours, since it wasn't signed. So what you did was correct, but I'm not sure what @Pencilsforall is expected to make of this source check, since you only appear to have confirmed two of the sources? -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering: Ah, I clipped or linked the sources they couldn't access. Looking at them now, they do check out, or in the case of multiple citations, confirm part of the sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

hi All. Sorry for being slow. I'll take a look and finish up the review soon.Pencilsforall (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pencilsforall: thanks for the reply above. It's been a little while; what's the status on this review? Would you still have time to complete it? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@WikiFouf, if you don't get a response soon, I think it's best if this review is closed as unsuccessful. You can then immediately renominate it. It will be eligible for next month's backlog drive, so I'm confident you'll get a review soon if you relist. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi- Thanks @Averageuntitleduser for the help with the source checks with the confirmation of the French sources and clippings of the others. Overall, this is looking good and there are only a few minor edits that are needed before it can be passed. Here's my full review. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pencilsforall : Thanks for the notes and glad you enjoy the article:)

• "Supposedly" : This is because this date comes from the initial building contract, as described in source #1. As far as I know, there is no confirmation that the building was completed on schedule, but nothing to suggest it wasn't either. I added a note to clarify, hope that works.
• "Driven out" : Good point, I switched it to "deserted", does that work?
• Source spot-check: The exchange for a bonus is described in source #1 : "Dans ce contexte, John W. Peck, président de la manufacture de chemises John W. Peck & Co., propose en 1902 au conseil de la ville de Saint-Louis de s’y installer en échange d’un boni de 30 000 $." [Google-translated: "In this context, John W. Peck, president of the shirt manufacturing company John W. Peck & Co., proposed in 1902 to the Saint-Louis city council to settle there in exchange for a bonus of $30,000."]

WikiFouf (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good! Pencilsforall (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A few comments on style "Supposedly completed in the spring of 1904" Is there a reason to doubt this claim? If so, explain the source of the doubt, if not, remove the "supposedly" term. "..the textile industry was rapidly driven out of Montreal." driven out seem to assume a willful effort to remove the industry, rather than a consequence of globalization.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Looks good.
	2b. 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).	Spot check of sources: Source [3] Confirms the 1910 date, but can't confirm the exchange for a bonus comment in this source or source 2. Source [4] Thanks to for the second option. Source shows the shirt manufacturing business was in the Peck Building. Source [6] Looks good. Source [7] Looks good. Accessed through Wayback Machine. Source [11] Source in French; Confirmed by second opinion. Checks out, the employee growth is telling. Source [13] Confirmed information
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article nicely covers the history and current uses of the building.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No concerns.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Minor edits on tone and wording; See above.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No concerns.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Nice pictures!
	7. Overall assessment.	Nice article. Fun to see the history and current use of the building. Small things that can be easily addressed.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 talk 00:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the largest video game studio in the world is headquartered in a former textile factory?

• Source: Radio-Canada : 25 ans de succès vidéoludiques pour Ubisoft Montréal

"Lorsque Christophe Derennes, aujourd’hui directeur général d’Ubisoft Montréal, s’est installé avec sa famille dans la métropole québécoise en 1997, il était loin de se douter que, 25 ans plus tard, le studio du quartier Mile-End deviendrait le plus important au monde, fort de ses 4000 personnes employées. [...] Ubisoft Montréal occupe les bureaux de l'édifice Peck depuis ses débuts dans le métropole québécoise."

Google-translated from French : "When Christophe Derennes, now general manager of Ubisoft Montreal, moved with his family to the Quebec metropolis in 1997, he was far from suspecting that, 25 years later, the studio in the Mile End district would become the largest in the world, with 4,000 employees. [...] Ubisoft Montreal has occupied the offices of the Peck Building since its beginnings in the Quebec metropolis."

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by WikiFouf (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

WikiFouf (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - Is this still true today? The source is from 2009, but the article doesn't mention this. Also, do all of the 1,900 employees work in the building?

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @WikiFouf: Nice work on the article. However, I had a concern about the hook. Epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius the source I included is not the 2009 NYT one, it's from 2022. As for where the employees work, good point, I'm pretty sure Ubisoft Montreal also owns some neighbouring smaller buildings. It could say "headquartered" instead of "housed" - WikiFouf (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Or "mainly housed" - WikiFouf (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
    • @WikiFouf, yeah, "headquartered" sounds good if you want to make that change. I was looking at the wrong source; my bad. Once you propose a revised hook, I can formally review it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
      • @Epicgenius Perf! Noob question, sorry, can I just edit the hook on the DYK page or do I have to resubmit another one? - WikiFouf (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
        • @WikiFouf, editing the hook here is fine. You don't need to create another nomination/hook. Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
          • @Epicgenius done thanks! @Epicgenius WikiFouf (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
            • Looks good to me. (Also, @WikiFouf, I noticed you linked to my talk page. I do not get pings from these; I only receive notifications if you link my user page. This is just a heads-up in case you didn't know.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
              • @Epicgenius Oh right thanks, hadn't noticed:) - WikiFouf (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)