Talk:Jeddah Tower/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC) I will be reviewing this over the next couple of days. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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.	Splitting this into three sections Lead:Minor errors. It would read better if new was taken out before the word development. Overview: Timeline: Design:
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Also splitting Lead:The lead either doesn't comply with guidelines or really doesn't exist. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. The current lead will need to be incorporated into the body of the article and then re-written to become a summary of the article. An easy way to figure out what needs to be incorporated is to read the article without the lead. Any information which is lost by not reading the lead must be incorporated into the article. In addition, the lead section should not be more than four paragraphs and does not need to contain references if the information is referenced later on in the article. Early problem was resolved. The last sentence of the lead is not written anywhere else in the article and it seems out of place. Layout: Words to watch:
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	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.	All images are tagged [1], [2], [3]. The two renderings of the tower itself trouble me as I am not 100% positive if that is allowed under the criteria of minimal usage especially since concerns were offered by Future Perfect at Sunrise. I also don't think the article currently gives enough information about the importance and originality of the sky terrace for it to meet the criteria of contextual significance.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Writing quality of the captions is poor and could offer more detailed descriptions. Why does one caption say render while the other says rendering? Descriptions are much better. Why is the second tower image a "render" while the first one is a "rendering", are they both computer renderings? The caption for the sky terrace doesn't sound right when I read it out loud. The content is good but it could be edited for readability.
	7. Overall assessment.

Initial thoughts

I haven't done a thorough review of the article yet, nor have I read through the entire thing but here is a list of some problems I see right away. I am noticing some writing quality and spelling issues. Compliment means "Politely congratulate or praise (someone) for something", the word you are looking for is Complement "Add to (something) in a way that enhances or improves it; make perfect".

• One dab link [4] Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Good job on the quick fixes, I'll try to get more reviewing done later tonight or tomorrow. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note Throughout the review, I may be making statements of what I believe can be done to the article to improve the article even if it is not necessarily required for the Good Article Nomination to be passed. I will make a clear distinction when I have finished my review of exactly what is required. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For a reference on how good a building article must be to pass take a look at this article which managed to pass even though it's (now) well outdated and has less than 10 references. If that's a good article then this should be featured, but it's not because that shouldn't be a good article, it should be delisted for now as the project was temporarily cancelled. Also, remember, this type of article cannot be compared to an article on say a historical British colony in regard to what it needs to pass, and you should expect it to have some jargon. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I try to refrain from comparing good article candidates to other good articles. I also try to maintain an extremely close relationship between my review and the policies set at WP:GA?. I also tend to rely on Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not as well. I do not tend to create my own good article criteria. I am almost sure that this article will be passed after some modifications. For now, try to do a quick copy edit. You could even request a review or a copy edit from WP:GOCE. Sorry I didn't get much of a review in today; although, you got lucky. Most good article reviews take much longer to begin. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting my review on hold for now

The article is still in the process of major revisions to the point at which I cannot review any of the sections. Things change so quickly that this article will not be in the same state when it is finished as it is when I am reviewing. I am not going to do any more reviewing until the article is in a slightly more stable state. Please notify me on my talk page when you have finished your contributions to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2 was a huge breakthrough for the project, and I have been scrambling for all the news I can get, extracting every possible fact out of them I can. New news is sharply petering out after a week since the announcement and the drastic changes will stop as well. I admit I submitted the nomination a bit too hastily; I was expecting the review commencement to take longer. The only big thing that can happen now is for some sort of construction to start, which would lead to the final section, Construction, which would be pretty straightforward, anyway. Compare the article to where it was a week ago. That sort of exponential growth is unsustainable and has run out of fuel. Today is the ninth, so it was just a week ago this morning that real news was announced, which further legitimized old news and led to huge opportunities in the article to go in great depth. And it's not like the changes are conflicting, it's just more stuff being added with equivalent quality to the rest. Yes, it will change (not nearly as rapidly as it has been), no, the quality will not fall off (as long as I'm the one editing it). Please consider reviewing it as it stands now as I literally have exausted about every source there is (and that wasn't true until a few minutes ago). Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand that things aren't conflicting, I was just wary of a review while there were still massive changes being made to the article. If you do not have any more plans for major changes I will begin my review again. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, one remarkable fact that I forgot to point out is that despite that the article has gotten tens of thousands of views over the past seven days, it has received zero vandalism, this is absolutely unheard of in a highly publicized topic; it's reach even extended to late night television, at midnight last night, tv on mute and me not really paying attention, it was shown and mentioned in the session between shows on AdultSwim. Furthermore, it has not even been touched by the common skyscraper-editors, raime, timsdad, astronaut, etc. which is surprising as they generally like uniformity in having things a certain way that this article is not, as it has risen above just being about a "building." It would even further add to people's confidence seeing it's a good article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The only reason it's taken me this long to build it up to par is because I can only work so fast from my phone. Look how many edits I've had to do because it crashes easily if you toggle between pages. Daniel Christensen (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so there are some underlying reasons why I have been pushing to slow or halt my review. First, I am fairly sick in real life and find it hard to devote the energy into analyzing the article required for the review. Second, I have become slightly attached to the article, would like to see it promoted, and would like to help edit it. Because of this bias, I cannot, in good faith, continue to review the article. I have given a request to an excellent reviewer (User:H1nkles) to review the article. If he cannot do the good article review I will tag it for a second opinion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)