Talk:Tweed Courthouse/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a good read of this article! Here's my (very few) nitpicking comments! I've come across a few of your articles and without question, this article is just as high quality. Will easily pass.

"The Tweed Courthouse was heavily criticized as wasteful and gaudy during its construction." - was it really heavily criticized? And by whom?
- Reworded to make clear that the media criticized the courthouse. epicgenius (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Thomas Little, a political appointee of the New York City Board of Supervisors, was given ex officio credit" - what does 'ex officio' mean?
- Linked to Ex officio member and explained briefly. epicgenius (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike other architects of his day.." - is that your thinking or is that in the source? I mean, it's probably true and might be okay but might be contentious.
- Deleted, as that wasn't in the source. epicgenius (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-heading "Tweed leadership" - why didn't you use the word 'construction' in there since most of that section is about construction?
- Changed to "Tweed construction". epicgenius (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-heading "Court use and decline" - is that the most appropriate title for this section? I read more about demolition and modifications.
- Changed to "Court use, modifications, and decline". The building was heavily criticized for its day, and a lot of people wanted to demolish it, but this never came to pass. Also, this talks somewhat about the different uses. Mostly, it's a section about the 1880s through 1970s uses of the courthouse. epicgenius (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References 2 and 3 don't seem to work for me.
- Fixed, hopefully. epicgenius (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is professionally written, researched and presented. Plenty of citations, verifiable sources and literature. Broadly covered, neutral and stable. No copyright violations detected. Good use of images and tagged with CC or public domain. Thanks, Lizzy (talk 19:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzy150: Thanks for the review. I have replied to each of your comments individually above. epicgenius (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thanks for addressing those points, here are my last comments:

I corrected 2 small typos in the article.
"Eidlitz was told to finish the north porch facing Chambers Street" - do we know who told him?
Should you include a wiki-link to The New York Landmarks Conservancy which you've used in the Preservation section?
Same for "New York City Department of General Services", even though it's been renamed New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services now

Happy with the rest, thanks Lizzy (talk 22:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizzy150: Thanks for the additional comments. I added these two links. I don't know who instructed Eidlitz, since the sources don't indicate as much (I guess it was the city, but that would be original research). epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to pass this now. My only other suggestion would be to slightly expand the lead section to include more details on the building's key architectural features. There's probably a bit more that could be said of that. Thanks for a good read! Lizzy (talk 23:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]