Talk:Corbin 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: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 05:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I will have the review in a day or two. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The Most Comfortable Chair, thanks for taking up the review. Did you have any comments? epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry for the delay Epicgenius. I will be done by tomorrow. Best. — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Design

• "supposedly the first structure to use such technology" — In the US or the world? Or the state?
  •  Added

Facade

• "The building has facades on Broadway and John Street, with one bay on Broadway and eight on John Street." — To avoid repetition, could this be more concise? → "The building has facades with one bay on Broadway and eight on John Street." or "The building has facades on Broadway and John Street, with one bay on the former and eight on the latter."
  •  Done I went with another option, "The building's facade contains one bay on Broadway and eight on John Street." epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

History

• "John Haberdinck" — Mention his profession at the end if that information is available. It will give some context since he does not have an article here.
  •  Done

Construction and early use

• "Corbin's company, the Corbin Banking Company," — A little redundant since it is already mentioned above in "which would house his banking firm". Perhaps remove "Corbin's company"?
  •  Done

Renovation

• "destroyed or severely damaged during the September 11, 2001, attacks," — Could this be written as it is in its Wikipedia article "destroyed or severely damaged during the September 11 attacks," as the commas are somewhat awkward. I don't believe the year is needed as it is a widely recognized event.
  •  Partly done I have moved the year somewhere else because it is important in establishing why these transit improvements were made in the 2000s and 2010s. epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• "took up space" — Can it be more specific instead? If they rented or leased it out?
  •  Done

Critical reception

• Link — "Roman aqueduct", "French Renaissance"
• "fifth edition of the AIA Guide to New York City (published in 2010)" → "fifth edition of the AIA Guide to New York City (2010)" — Since "fifth edition" is mentioned previously, don't have to specify with "published in".
• "The AIA Guide described the upper-story arches" — Minor point but I would avoid using "The AIA Guide" again in the sentence right after the one in which its name was used. Perhaps "They", "The guide", "The book" or "The catalogue" would work.
  •  All done

References

• Reference 28 and 31 — Require "work" and/or "publisher" parameters.
  •  Done

Bibliography

• There is an issue with the last source — "Cite uses deprecated parameter |lastauthoramp"
  •  Done It seems to have been fixed now by someone else. epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That should be all. The article is very well-written and should pass. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The Most Comfortable Chair, thanks for the response. I have addressed all these points now. epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Final

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is written nicely and has a great flow. It meets the criteria. Thank you for your work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 16:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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.