Talk:Mutual Reserve 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: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

• Link skyscraper? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Could you expand the caption for the image in infobox? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• The first owner, the family of shipping magnate - wouldn't they be the second owner? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • They owned the building, but Mutual Reserve leased it. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• 305 Broadway was renamed the Langdon Building - why? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Added
• In your other articles, you mention more things, such as what is near the building, is there something we can add? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done

General

• Could we get some better captions? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Can we link frontage again? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• link limestone? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• on my screen, the first image moves the header to the right, could we right-align? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• In a 1909 meeting - either "in 1909 a meeting", or "in the 1909 meeting..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done I changed it to "In 1909, during a meeting ... Carnegie Steel engineer said..."
• The building was described as being "absolutely fireproof" - by whom? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Added
• Link casement window. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Can we change 1st floor to First floor? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Four Otis & Brother elevators - should this name be italics? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, I don't think the name of the supplier company is usually italicized.
• The building's fireproof features were inspected in an 1895 visit led by William Hume and managing director G. H. Wooster, leading The New York Times to state that "Modern scientific construction" - Modern isn't a proper noun. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Fixed It was the beginning of a sentence, I think. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• having paid around $408,297 - seems pretty precise for an "around". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Fixed
• No copyvio found Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Alt text is suitable Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Notes are cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the review again. I addressed these points. epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Placed on hold. Only a few comments to address above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • No problem. Fantastic article. The above was quite literally all I could see, so probably a good FAC candidate in the future. Well done, promoting.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:22, 31 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.