Talk:World's littlest skyscraper/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is mostly good (some things could be improved per below); there appears to be multiple MoS violations.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Minor issues with the reference format; major issues with the way information is presented; some possible original opinion introduced

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold, until decision is reached on whether issues presented can be resolved.

Writing and MoS

• Why "4.0 floors"... Is "four floors" something to be frowned on?

I have changed to four floors DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Per the MoS, "If sets of brackets are nested, use different types for adjacent levels of nesting;"

I am not sure what you are referring to here.... DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, "... (... by 9 ft (2.7 m) (108 sq ft (10.0 m2))" and "(At that time, the 792 ft (241 m) Woolworth Building in New York City was the tallest building in the world.)" should not happen; i.e. ((xxx)) or any such nesting. The MoS recommends to use differentiate the different levels of brackets, e.g. (...[...]...), or to recast the sentences by eliminating some or all of the brackets. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the nested sets of parentheses, as recommended. DiverDave (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... the same year that J.D. McMahon undertook his own confidence trick in Wichita Falls ..."

  "Own" is redundant.

I have replaced text as recommended DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "McMahon soon collected $200,000 in ...", "... was soon repaired, ..."

  "Soon" is redundant.

I have replaced text as recommended DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... bringing gusts of wind reaching as high as 97 mph."

  "... bringing gusts of wind as strong as 97 mph."

I have replaced text as recommended DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is "reaching" needed? If so, then I suggest "... bringing gusts of wind that reached speeds as high as 97 mph." instead (yeah... it is going back to using "high" but it seems clearer and avoids the noun plus -ing construct). Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't notice the "reaching" part. It has been removed. The text now reads: "... bringing gusts of wind as strong as 97 mph." DiverDave (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "A 15 foot ..."

  "A 15-foot ..."

I have replaced text as recommended DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... would have to wait until late 2005."

  "... was delayed till late 2005."

I have replaced text as recommended DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Photographs of the McMahon Building may be viewed at the sources in the "External links" section below, or by clicking here."

  This contravenes the MoS on External links; it is needless to raise notice of it in the article text.

I have changed the text to read: "Photographs of the McMahon Building may be viewed by clicking here." DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, the whole sentence is the problem. Remove it from the main body of the article; the point is not to advertise other sections. It can be in the External links as * [http://www.bysp.com/projects/pdf/proj10/proj6.pdf Bundy, Young, Sims & Potter's report with photographs of the "world's littlest skyscraper"], but seeing how it is being used as a reference, it might also be redundant to place in there (see WP:EL). Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the whole sentence. DiverDave (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am not certain all five links in the See also section help further the reader's knowledge about the "World's Littlest Skyscraper".

I have removed 3 of the 5 links as recommended. I believe the remaining links are useful. DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• External links should be single links to the resource (not one to the host and one to the page). Furthermore, some of them seem to fail the criteria laid down in WP:EL (external links are not supposed to promote personal opinions/thoughts or pages).

I am not sure what you are referring to here. Which links are promoting personal opinions? DiverDave (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically, if a link is a reliable source, then it should have been used as a reference. Is Texas Escapes Online Magazine link a reliable source that should have been used as a reference or a "personal website" (in the sense that someone wrote it but is deemed "unreliable" per Wikipedia policies) that would be promoted by placing it in the External links? It does not seem to me to add any further encyclopaedic content to the article than what has been covered already. On the other links, they seem too distant (two or three places removed) from the subject to warrant placement here (and as stated, why are four of the six lines having two links each?). Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have repaired the double-linking isssue, and also removed 5 of the 6 items on the list. DiverDave (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and presentation

• Although sources accepted as reliable by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are used, I find it a bit worrying that they are cast as fact. Most of these sources are newspaper articles, prone to sensationalism and their sources are the townsfolk themselves (with interests in making the structure more distinguished than it is). More high-quality sources (generally books and publishings of certain quality) make it known that the information they carry on the structure are not confirmed. Instead of proclaiming it as fact, Carlton Stowers cast the tale as a local legend. Fodor's states it as a rumor: http://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/texas/the-panhandle/review-437355.html (p. 517 of their [Fodor's Texas]). Even though he would not likely qualify as "high-quality", John Kelso wrote in his Texas Curiosities that "[he] couldn't find anyone who could verify the legend behind this tiny building at Seventh and LaSalle Streets in the city's historic district." He plainly said that the account in his book was from Carole Woessner of the Wichita County Heritage Society. Thus, the issue becomes a dispute over the story behind the building (notably the plans and the 480" scam). While the story is notable, it should be clarified that it came from local accounts.

• This is an excerpt from p. 215 of Robert F. O'Connor's Texas myths, published for the Texas Committee for the Humanities by Texas A & M University Press, 1986, ISBN 0890962642

The oil booms and oil boomtowns, from Wichita Falls after the Electra field to 1980, when nearly every stockbroker in Dallas got in the drilling business, have always held a smell of chicanery that almost obscured the scent of empire. The "world's littlest skyscraper," erected in Wichita Falls in 1919, is still a sort of monument. Promoters promised investors a four-story office building and built one four stories high, but measuring only 10 x 16 feet, a high-rise outhouse. The last time around, bankers who didn't know a drilling rig from a pump jack got taken. And in most cases, the landholders have always been the true winners, the inheritors, for oil is merely another product of the soil.

• I think there is more than enough high quality sourcing to point that McMahon's 480" plan should be cast as a local legend than as fact.

You are quite correct in pointing out that we are dealing with legend here, and not fact, and this should be made clear. In accordance with your recommendations, I have changed some text; specifically:

• "Reportedly the result of a fraudulent investment scheme by a confidence man,..."
• "According to local legend, when McMahon announced in 1919 that he would build...."
• "McMahon is said to have neglected to mention that the scale of his blueprints was in inches rather than feet,..."

I have taken the liberty of including the sources you have provided. You are obviously a better internet detective than I :) DiverDave (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the more distinctive hint of "suspension of disbelief" is the part about the plan's clear statement of 480" height; there is no evidence of the plan (hence, the scale tale has to be accounted as a local story until proven true). Personally, I found it incredulous that when everyone is clear it would be a four-story building, no one stopped to wonder, even if they mistook inch for feet, that each story would be 120' tall. I am not surprised that those not writing for newspapers would regard it as a local legend. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Does the Texas Architect site require users to login to listen to the article? If so, then "Subscription required" should be part of the reference (usually under the format field, which should also note that it is an audio article). Similarly, Newsbank.com should note that it is a subscription site.

2 weeks ago, when I wrote this article, anyone could listen to the article on the Texas Society of Architects (TSA) website and read all of the articles on the Newsbank.com website. I have just checked these sites again. Now I cannot listen to the audio file on the TSA website, and I can only read some of the files on the Newsbank.com website. Accordingly, I have labelled all of these sites as "subscription required". DiverDave (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see the need for the quotes in the references, especially when the sources are cited more than once for things not contained within the quote.

I have removed all quotes from the references. DiverDave (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... one is left to wonder whether the two men had ever crossed paths."

  Unsourced and an opinion that should not be in an encyclopaedic article; one is also led to wonder the point of mentioning Carlo Ponzi, other than to introduce this piece of original opinion. Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the entire paragraph referring to Charles Ponzi. DiverDave (talk)

• "... and the investors either did not notice the substitution of the ' (feet) character for the " (inches) character, or assumed it was a misprint."

  Unsourced Jappalang (talk) 06:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced text. DiverDave (talk)

Images

• The 1923 dateline for US public domain is intended for items that were either published or registered with the US Copyright Office before that date. It is not for items simply created. Publication (the distribution of several copies to the public) is not creation. What evidence is there that File:Burkburnett Texas oilfield.jpg and File:Lucas gusher.jpg were photographs published before 1923 and not items that remained in private collection until recently?

I have removed both of these images. DiverDave (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• If public domain Burkburnett photographs are desired, then the Library of Congress has 11 veriafiably public domain photographs.

• Again, linking a document in the Infobox to direct readers to photographs of the subject is not proper (per the rules on External links). The building is still there; one can take a photograph and contribute it as a "free" image here. Similarly, one can go through Flickr, Pbase, and Deviantart, and ask the authors if they might consider releasing their work under a suitable license (Creative Commons Generic or Sharealike).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

I have removed the linked document from the Infobox. DiverDave (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, the above can be resolved. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As the above have been resolved, I see little to stand in the way of passing this article as a GA. Hopefully, someone in the vicinity of (or is planning to visit) Wichita Falls can provide us with a "free" photograph, but having images is not a requirement of GA (or FA). Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2010 (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.