Talk:Forest 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

Nominator: Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs) 07:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See my comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This isn't what I expect from a GA lead. A well written lead shouldn't need citations and should be at least one good sized paragraph {preferably at least 2). See Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section for more guidance. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Lead with looking much better now. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some issues found. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC) Citations are looking better now. I spot checked about 3/4 of them and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until some minor prose/formatting issues are sorted out. Thank you to the nominator for making the changes needed for this article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Why is "West End Presbyterian Church" bolded in the lead? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  As an alternative name for the building, it's bolded per WP:BOLDSYN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  From my understanding the church is now who owns the building not really a different name for it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  ( Peanut gallery comment) it would be MOS:BOLDREDIRECT anyway Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Forest Building was designed around preexisting trees on the site in suburban Henrico County in 1978 and completed in 1980. Source doesn't support the dates or location given. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Source added to be specific. Most sources say 1980 as the general date for the project, but some say 1978. The source I added confirms the two-year period of work on the project. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• following interior renovations that preserved Wines' forest exterior concept. Not supported by source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  I moved forward a footnote to support this statement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I expanded the lede per your suggestion. I had originally included citations to the specific statement of what this building is uniquely known for per WP:LEADCITE but have taken them out. Thanks for the feedback thus far. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! The lead is looking much better now! IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• At the Forest Building, SITE proposed building the entrance of the warehouse around existing trees on the site Not in the source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
• I don't want this to discourage you from continuing to work on this article. I think you have a great start here, I just don't feel that this article is up to GA standards. I'm going to place this article on hold for now as I want to give you a chance to improve things but to be upfront I'm considering failing this article for two reasons.
  1. The use of quotes. Quotes should only really be used if there is no other way to convey the message the source is trying to get across. About 30% of your article is in quotes. This is too much in my opinion. Additionally, I would consider using the blockquote template for longer quotes.
  2. Sourcing issues. 3 out of the 7 sources I checked had issues. I don't feel that it's productive for me to check all of your sources when I keep finding issues. I encourage you to go back and double-check that you have the right references for all of your information. IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  @IntentionallyDense Thanks for the feedback. I have relied on quotes to the extent I have because so much of this article is about the critical response to a work of art/architecture, and I wanted to let the critics speak for themselves instead of paraphrasing them. However, I've updated the article to replace some quotations with summaries in my own words. As for the sources, I think what happened was that I didn't repeat footnotes for statements that had already been cited earlier in the article, as with "At the Forest Building, SITE proposed building the entrance of the warehouse around existing trees on the site." Hence the reason you don't see that in the citation for the following sentence. I've inserted footnotes for instances where a statement is repeated and double checked the sources to be sure they're matched up to the statement they support. If you spot check any more, you should find them in order.

  If the quotation issue continues to be a GA dealbreaker, then I think it may just have to be a dealbreaker. I simply don't feel comfortable summarizing so many critics' and scholars' assessments of this work in my words. (They aren't factual statements; they're statements of opinion and analysis, which is why I think the use of quotations is warranted.) I'll understand if you fail it and will hope that in the future another reviewer might view it differently. I appreciate all your thoughtful engagement here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  I’m on mobile right now but I’ll get back to you with a more detailed response later today. As for now thank you for your cooperation and willingness to make changes. I know it can be scary to have someone look over your work so intensely and even harder to have your work criticized. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not scary at all :) I welcome feedback and the opportunity to improve. I was already proud of this article (I was actually surprised it hadn't been written yet) and even yet your comments are making it better. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Dclemens1971 I still think the article uses too many quotes for it to fufill GA criteria. I just want to confirm that you are okay with that simply being a dealbreaker and that you aren't interested in changing the article to fit those standards? It's been a pleasure working with you and thank you for being so responsive. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  @IntentionallyDense I've reworked the text to remove as many quotes as I think makes sense without losing appropriate attribution of ideas to the critics (and the architect) whose work is being cited. If you'd take a look to see if you think it exceeds your threshold I'd appreciate it! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  The article is looking much better now in regards to the quotes! Have you had the chance to look over the sources to make sure there was no further sourcing issues? IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  @IntentionallyDense Yep, I have reviewed carefully if you wish to have a look. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good I will continue with the review then. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• The first use of the term "MoMA's" should say the full name. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  @IntentionallyDense It was mentioned higher up in the article (under "Architecture"), but I added a parenthetical. Was there anything else on prose/formatting? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  No that is all thank you! I didn't realize it had already been mentioned! IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:00, 7 October 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.