Talk:O Street Market/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 08:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary

This article is generally OK, but I found some issues and have questions:

• Thanks for taking the time to review the article. APK whisper in my ear 21:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Issues

In this "21st century" section, it says:

By the late 1990s, the O Street Market had once more become dilapidated. The structure fell into disrepair, trash collected around the structure, many vendors were squatteers without leases, and drug dealers and gang members loitered near the building, driving customers away. The building's owner fell behind on tax payments, and the city threatened to place a lien on the building and foreclose.

Late 1990s is PROBABLY still in the 20th century, so I think that it's kind of weird.

•  Done APK whisper in my ear 21:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions

Do you SURE this article stays on the topic most of the time?

• Yes, I think so. What area do you think goes off topic? APK whisper in my ear 21:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @AgnosticPreachersKid: from O Street Market#Design:

On each street-facing facade of the tower there are two sets of doors with large transom windows. Each set of doors is framed by columns topped with cast iron foliate capitals. The columns support a projection that features decorative brickwork and a segmental arch.

Over-detailed, if shorter or closer to the main article will be better. 333-blue 23:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

I will try to put this article on hold, or else I will ask the 2nd opinion, you can discuss them.

Result

Pass, it looks much better now. 333-blue 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment

I am very disappointed that this was passed without all the issues brought up on the reviewer's talk page having been addressed. I posted the following there three days ago:

What I don't see in the review is sufficient attention being paid to problematic prose and grammar. For example, take the first paragraph in the 21st century section. The first two sentences both use the word "rehabilitation", which is unnecessarily repetitive. The third sentence has issues with prose and grammar, including unclear antecedents and referents: They proposed the partial closure of a 40-foot (12 m) wide plaza on 8th Street into a sidewalk, parking lot, and retail space, and for the addition of new windows in the walls. The fourth and seventh sentences start with "But"; starting sentences with conjunctions is something that should be done sparingly. Then the final sentence ends with but there were years of delays and the project stalled., followed immediately by the new paragraph's Redevelopment of the O Street Market then stalled for two years as the developers sought to meet the demands imposed by the Historic Preservation Review Board. First the projects stalls, and then it stalls for two years. Is this a second stall, or the same one? This is the sort of unclear wording that should be fixed during the review.

The third sentence (now the second sentence after revisions) hasn't been changed in the slightest, though the nominator did good work on the rest of the paragraph. The "stall" wording has improved somewhat, but it's still not quite there. And there are other grammatical errors that any review should find and point out. I don't doubt that AgnosticPreachersKid can make the necessary changes if they're noted, but they need to be listed. The second Design paragraph starts with "The tower projects"—what exactly does this mean?—and would seem to contradict the source, which says "In plan, the tower does not project from the building." The sentence in the penultimate 21st century paragraph, In the middle of the store, arches utilizing some of the original brickwork designated the former location of the market's exterior wall., is a bit rough, and should be revised. Minor things include missing hyphens (e.g., mid-2011, 19th-century public markets), but all of these should be found by the reviewer and pointed out so they can be fixed by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I knew that the "design" section has some problems, and some details go off the topic, and hyphens SHOULD NOT use here (e.g., 19th-century, cause it strange). Anyway, it's OK. 333-blue 09:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's most unfortunate, but your entire statement shows why you should not be reviewing these nominations. You knew that a section "has some problems", yet you promoted it despite criteria that clearly say otherwise. You state that hyphens should not be used in "19th-century public markets" because you think it's strange—despite the fact that it is correct English usage and thus required by the criteria. In short, you're using your own opinions and feelings rather than properly applying the GA criteria. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I've been rather confused on how to proceed with this nomination. I noticed yesterday that it had been promoted, but if there are still issues (like @BlueMoonset: mentioned above), I'll be more than happy to address them. @333-blue:, I know you're trying to help, but as previously stated, maybe you should hold off on reviewing GA nominations for now. Maybe ask an experienced reviewer if s/he can assist you with a future nomination to gain experience? I'll try to work on the article tomorrow. I've been very busy in real life this week (and this weekend) so please excuse the delay. APK whisper in my ear 18:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)