Talk:Barclay–Vesey Building/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Prose ✓ Pass

2. Verifiability ✓ Pass

3. Depth of Coverage ✓ Pass

4. Neutral ✓ Pass

5. Stable ✓ Pass

6. Illustrations ✓ Pass

7. Miscellaneous ✓ Pass

Comments

1.

• Link parallelogram
  •  Done
• Link mezzanines to the architectural term
  •  Done
• Link setbacks at the first mention in the main prose body.
  • I think it's already linked in the main paragraph of "Design". epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Limestone is linked at the 6th usage, it should be linked at the first
  •  Done
• "He wrote that the decorative elements should "so complicated in its structure as not to be readily comprehended; its framework should be as hidden as the steel structure itself." - Look over this sentence, it doesn't read right. I think you're missing a word in there
  •  Fixed
• "and a Mongoliana Mongolian" - What/where is Mongoliana? A Google search brings up Spanish recipes and a species of moth
  • That was a silly typo. I accidentally pasted "a Mongolian" before "a Mongolian". epicgenius (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Walker and the architecture group are duplinks
  •  Removed
• "the 2009 Guide to New York City Landmarks, described the building as "one of the most significant structures in skyscraper design" - Unless there's a specific MOS component I'm not aware of, I don't think the comma should be there
  •  Removed
• "In 1991, New York Times architectural writer Phillip Lopate stated that "the corporate publicity aspects of the Barclay–Vesey lobby seem, by today's standards, overdone and kitschy" compared to his later 60 Hudson Street commission, which was austere" - Who does "his" refer to? The context seems to rule out Lopate.
  •  Fixed

2.

• Ref 31 doesn't mention Maya architecture. In fact, the URL seems to redirect to a different page in the organization's website
  •  Fixed An archived URL does mention it. Beats me why websites like to create dead links when moving the files elsewhere. epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• The full citation for the "World Trade Center Building Performance Study" should have the authors listed, since they are given.
  •  Done
• Spot check of refs brings up no issues except for the two above, the first one can probably be fixed via archiving.

3.

4.

5.

6.

• I feel like (2013) is a bit of an odd caption, although the paranthesis may be giving that impression.
  •  Fixed

7.

• Would it be appropriate to add the {{Infobox NRHP}} template to this article?

Placing on hold, just a few things to tighten up. Hog Farm (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the review. I will address these issues by tomorrow. For point 7, did you mean something else? Infobox NRHP is already in the page. epicgenius (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's in there. The articles I generally work with use the NRHP infobox in a different way, so I didn't recognize it without looking into the markup. Hog Farm (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks. I have addressed all of these issues. epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Passing. Hog Farm (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)