Talk:Elmwood Tower

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Elmwoodtoweromaha.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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:Elmwood Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 06:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a quickfail as I believe the page is lacking sufficient breadth. For the age of this building, Omaha World-Herald references that are older than 2014 would be a must to provide the detail level that this GA should have. You have the full-run World-Herald available to you through Newspapers.com at WP:TWL. Use it.

Some notes:

• Pay attention to when {{convert}} should have adj=on triggered.
• Check citoid output for things like writer names "World-Herald, Stu Pospisil Omaha" and "Writer, Alia Conley World-Herald Staff".

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.

GA Review response

@Sammi Brie, thank you for the review. I've spent the last week going through Newspapers.com and Google Scholar again, making queries into both "Elmwood Tower" and "Masonic Manor". A broader search of WP:TWL was also conducted. I found some additional information, added in this diff, but have yet to find anything substantial that is missing from the article (most of what I've added is nominal and at times bordering on WP:TOOMUCH in my opinion). I'm reaching out to see if there's something that you saw during your review that I am missing in my searches. I assume you found something substantial since this quickfailed on criteria 3, and honestly I'm a little worried that something that major made it under my radar.

At this point I'm getting a bit stumped, but also recognize that my queries are far from perfect, such as when I missed one source for the GA review of Van Tran Flat Bridge and it sank the whole thing. Please get back when you can, I would love to continue improving this article but am just running out of places to look. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 05:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Etriusus I was just surprised to see nothing, particularly given that I've written GA-grade articles into Omaha (e.g. KPTM). In my experience, articles like this greatly benefit from this sort of newspaper digging. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie, thanks for the second set of eyes, I really appreciate it. Renominating. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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:Elmwood Tower/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 03:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey Etriusus, I'm going to pick this review up. It looks like you've addressed the issues that caused the quickfail and I can't see anything that would trigger another, so I'll give this a full review. I'll ping you in a few days once my review is done! grungaloo (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

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):

   See comments Prose is good, complies with MOS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   AGF on sources that are behind paywalls. No copyvio detected.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   See comments, a few extra details should be added I had assumed the sources had some of this info - spot check showed they did not. This is a good coverage of what seems to be available on this building.

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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Really limited image options unfortunately. This seems to be the only free use image available.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• There's a few cases of WP:REFCLUTTER in the third and fourth paragraphs of the history section. I haven't checked the refs yet, but Most of the refs are paywalled, so I'd suggest checking if they're all needed or if some contain redundant information.

 Done, I was slightly more granular with the citations. If you're having trouble accessing them, consider applying to WP:TWL for free access

• Infobox should have Type, Architectural Style, Named For, Designed by, Constructed by, Renovated date. Since you mention this info in the text it makes sense to add it to the infobox.

 Done, I didn't add Named for since I didn't see where that came from.

• "the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) granted the largest mortgage to the Midwest in their history to the project," - This is confusingly written, "largest mortgage to the Midwest" specifically. The mortgage was given to the project and not the "Midwest". Suggest a rewrite.

 Done

• "and was originally constructed to house members and their families." - Constructed to be occupied by house members? Seems to be missing a word. - wow did I misread this, no change needed.

Coolio

• First line in description, ref #2 about the height should go after punctuation MOS:CITEPUNCT.

 Not done, Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis., this applies to the templated info since its disputed information. I can't add a citation inside a covert template.

• "but following renovations and room combinations," - Add a date for these renovations.

 Not done, source only states The building originally had 320 units, but many have been combined, and there are now 219. Last week saw only six vacancies.

• "While not a condo, residents purchase leases that they can later sell" - Suggest moving this before the sentence about cost, makes more sense to understand they're leases, and then what the cost is.

 Done

• "and the building includes a parking garage, 4 elevators, a library, dining space, and a 4-acre garden" - Suggest making this its own sentence, doesn't really flow from the primary clause.

 Done

• "follows a modernist style of architecture." - This wikilink should point to modern architecture.

 Done

• "One hundred residents, approximately one third of the total occupants, had to be rescued by firefighters, ..." - This is a fairly complex sentence with a lot of parentheticals. I'd recommended splitting it in two or simplifying it if you can.

 Done

• "including a 19 year old man and the owner of a local utilities company" - Are these 2 different people? If they are, you can swap the order they're listed in so it sounds less like it might be one person.

 Done

• "In 2009, the building was renamed..." - Add why it was renamed.

 Not done, no source mentions why.

Hey again Etriusus, I'm finished my review, see comments above. Feel free to reply to them inline if you'd like. If there's any questions let me know. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Grungaloo:, that should address everything. There are a few things that I didn't do, along with rationals to why. Thanks for the review! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Etriusus. I've managed to spot check some refs and they look good - I realize I was assuming the sources had more info, so I agree with your rationale for not making some of the changes I suggested. Other fixes look good, and I'm happy to promote this. Congrats! grungaloo (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2024 (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.

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 PrimalMustelid talk 03:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Elmwood Tower may have once been the tallest building in Omaha? Source: https://journalstar.com/news/local/history/tall-tales-of-omahans-living-the-high-rise-life-in-masonic-manor/article_f90114d0-542f-52d5-8aa0-bd82a3a98b9b.html
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Waluigi

Improved to Good Article status by Etriusus (talk). Self-nominated at 04:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Elmwood Tower; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article brought to GA status on 7 Feb, nominated 8 Feb. As it's from February, it's before the "unreviewed backlog mode" was activated. QPQ done. 5.7% on copyvio, so Violation Unlikely. No issues with image, hook is cited and interesting. Not sure if the hook should be better saying more explicitly its Omaha, Nebraska? Otherwise it's good to go! Kj cheetham (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)