Talk:Patterson Office Tower/GA1

GA Review

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

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)