Talk:Patterson Office Tower

GOCE copyedit

Hi!

Nice article. I enjoyed working on it. :)

Most of my efforts went to expanding the barelink refs to full, human-readable references. I also removed the description of the 2013 flasher, because while it was relevant at the time I can't imagine they're still looking for him (or why a Wikipedia reader would want to know that :D). Oh, I also removed the wikilinks on "College of Social Work" and the like because the wikilinks were pointed to articles about the subjects in general and not about the specific UK department devoted to them.

I'm not perfect. If I made a mistake or you don't agree with something I did, I encourage you to be WP:Bold and fix it. Also feel free to list this or any other article on WP:GOCE/REQ if you need more assistance in the future.

Bobnorwal (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Patterson Office Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 00:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Not Yet

   • The building's height needs a reference, and preferably that should be included in the history section under a section devoted to design.
   • Reference needed for the building's address.
   • What makes Ref 1 a Reliable Source? From my reckoning, it's a realtor's website that doesn't cite any sources of its own.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • What was the initial idea for the building and what was the need?
   • Who designed the building? What is its architectural style?
   • How much did it cost? Which state budget authorized it?
   • The article mentions it was a replacement for a class building, but was this a classroom space or was it offices? Should be explicitly laid out what its purpose was.
   • If it was offices, which offices or departments were or are located there? Which academic units hold courses there? Has this changed over the years?
   • "In an article published on December 11, 2018, by the Lexington Herald-Leader, the tower's 18th floor was mentioned under the heading "recommended capital project" -- what specifically is the upgrade recommended in the project? And who is recommending construction? Is it a suggestion by the newspaper or is the school or state recommending renovations?
   • Incidents and protests can probably be combined in one section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • Seems to be a bent toward recentism; ie, the building likely has a lot of history before the current state, likely because some of those sources (old newspapers, campus histories, etc.) are offline. Any chance for more history?

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there, though is there any interior photo available?

7. Other:

   On Hold Pending some additional detail needed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Note I notice now that the user who nominated this article has been blocked from editing. Though, I do think the article has potential should these comments be addressed. I will hold the GAN open for the requisite number of days to allow for any other enterprising editors to make the changes as they desire, or else withdraw it as necessary. —Ed!^(talk) 00:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up: There's only been a small amount of change on the article (the user in question brought up on my talk page an intent to make a few minor edits but nothing more. Based on the lack of activity, will Fail the article and remove from the queue. Would always be happy to see this one return if its significant concerns are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Patterson Office Tower/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This article about an office tower at a university (not unlike many other non-notable office towers at other universities) has been puffed up to something resembling notability by a user with the same name as the structure, in violation of WP:PROMONAME, who joined this November, who has only edited this article, and whose user page reads "I'm only here for one thing: get Patterson Office Tower to GA."

Most of the article goes into unnecessary detail about very minor incidents or incidental coverage, such as being the site of a seminar (it would be unusual for a university building not to be the site of a seminar), being mentioned in the university's capital plan (again, it would be unusual for it not), placement and removal of nearby outdoor decorative artworks not actually part of the building, etc. So I believe it is very far from meeting Good Article criterion 3b and I am not at all convinced that it is even notable. The Patterson Statue image likely also violates the sculptor's copyright, failing criterion 6a.

Additionally, some of the sources are primary web sites that appear to be of dubious reliability, and some infobox information (notably the architectural style) does not appear in the main article text.

I believe that removing the picayune detail that causes this to fail 3b would end up cutting this back to a stub, not worthy of GA. So I think it meets criterion 1 of WP:GAFAIL, "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria", and should be quick-failed.

In addition Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LovelyGirl7 may be relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

In addition, Patterson Office Tower (talk · contribs) has been rolling back some of my own edits to this very review. Don't do that! —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)