Talk:Grand Prospect Hall/GA1

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mujinga in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 19:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Overview

edit

Hi Rhododendrites and Epicgenius I'll take this on as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/January 2022. Comments to follow Mujinga (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Article is stable, the prose is great, I've made some comments below. There's no copyvio or original research, the article is broad and neutral. And stable. I'll put it on hold now. Mujinga (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

Copyvio check

edit
  • Earwig gives nothing to worry about

Pictures

edit
  • Pix all licensed
  • On the gallery, I'm not sure if the second fotos of the Bieves gig or the Golden Festival add much. The scaffolding is also a duplication. So I would suggest moving the front facade foto into the text and deleting the others, but happy to discuss.
    • We already have one picture from each of those events in the article, the front facade is covered by the infobox image, and we do indeed already have one of the scaffolding, so I'm inclined to remove the gallery for now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Infobox

edit
  • Do you need the ref on NRISref?

Lead

edit

Original Prospect Hall

edit

Kolle ownership

edit

White Eagle ownership

edit

Halkias ownership

edit

Sale to Rigas

edit
  • "filed permits" suggest "had filed permits"
  • "The demolition permits were approved in November 2021, though at that time there was not a concrete timeline for it to move forward.[58]" wow so is it actually going to be demolished and is there an update?

Building

edit
  • is Ulrich J. Huberty needed to be redlinked?

Facade

edit
  • ok

Features

edit
  • " The central entrance " suggest take out central becuase there's one in previous sentence
  • "Both of these levels are supported on marble columns and surround the ballroom on all sides except the front.[62][63][64] They had decorative elements such as garlands and cartouches" - had not have because the features have been demolished? we generally seem to be flipping between past/present tense in this section
    • I don't know if they've been demolished. It seems to make sense for me for design and construction to be in the past tense, and descriptions to be in present tense (until we have a source saying it's been demolished). I'm going to defer to Epicgenius on the wording/arrangement of these features, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
      I can take a look at the text tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
      I've changed the tense to past tense. I believe the exterior ornamentation at least has been removed already. As for the interior, the hall is closed permanently; while the individual design features may still be extant for the moment, places like the ballroom will sadly never see activity again. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  • excellent referencing and nice to have the clippings to read

Done, I think?

edit

@Mujinga: Thanks for the review. I think we're basically set with the above. A few notes, but mostly done. FYI I did come across a source published in the time since we nominated the article, so added some material. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:55, 9 January 2022 (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.