Talk:Home Life Building/GA1

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.

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 21:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
It contains copyright infringements -
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

251–257 Broadway in Lower Manhattan - perhaps the numbers could come later, the lede sentence can just say where it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
The references in infobox,what do they cite? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- These are basically references for the heights, architects, materials, and construction date. I decided to cluster them here for simplicity. Of course, these are also cited in the body per WP:INFOBOXCITE. epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The third and fourth bold seem overkill. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
clad with marble, and the Postal Telegraph Building is clad with - is there another word for clad? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
The Home Life Company bought 253 Broadway in 1947, and the two buildings were joined internally to form a single structure. - any idea when it began to be referred to as a single structure? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediately afterward, these became known as a single structure. epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

Not much wrong, pretty nitpicky stuff.

the neoclassical style.[7][11][4] - reforder Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
A couple redlinks - are they all notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the red links for the architects are probably notable, though I haven't created these pages yet. epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
roof.[18][2][19][20][d - do we need four refs here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the prompt review. I've resolved all these issues now. epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.