Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/More Hall Annex/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2017 [1].

More Hall Annex

edit
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From 1961 to 1988, this unassuming building on the University of Washington campus in Seattle handled nuclear research experiments and helped promote the safety of nuclear power to the public. It later became the subject of a battle between the university and preservationists before it was demolished early last year. The article has been sitting as a GA since just prior to that demolition, and I've made some touches here and there with the help of a copyeditor. SounderBruce 01:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

edit

Comments from Ceranthor

edit
  • "100 kilowatts (kW) thermal" - I think thermal kilowatts would be more familiar to most readers
    • Bri's source shows that kwt would be the correct order.
  • Try to vary sentence structure in the lead; four consecutive sentences start with "The X..."
    • Done.
  • ". The reactor room was 'proudly showcased' by the building's design, with large windows allowing views of reactor experiments from the outside." - citation?
    • Removed; though the lead doesn't necessarily need citations if the same quote is repeated.
  • "Amid concerns from preservation groups and the City of Seattle, the UW Board of Regents ultimately decided in February 2016 to demolish the structure." - Think despite might work better than amid?
    • Done.
  • "The research reactor was an Argonaut class reactor with an initial output of 10 kW thermal, later increased to 100 kW in 1967" - same note as the lead
    • Done.
  • "15 ft (4.6 m) high, 20 ft (6.1 m) long and 19 ft (5.8 m) wide." - comma after long
    • Done.
  • "running for some days at half power or for as little as 10 minutes.[6]" - how are these two things close enough to be compared? This doesn't seem like an appropriate comparison
    • It's not meant to be a comparison between the two figures. Dropped the "or".
  • Keep the serial comma consistent throughout; you use it in some places but not others
    • Done.
  • The sentence structure of "Design and functions" is very choppy; vary it some
  • Link nuclear engineering?
    • Done.
  • "The proposed 10 kW reactor was approved by the university's Board of Regents in April 1959, proposing a two-story " - redundant, and this doesn't make sense gramatically "the proposed reactor..., proposing"?
    • Fixed.
  • " The building would be designed by TAAG architects Wendell Lovett, Gene Zema and Daniel Streissguth, all members of the UW faculty.[11" - why the change to would instead of saying it "was designed by ..."
    • Done.
  • "Jentoft & Forbes, who would be paid $308,082 for the project; the building would be on the eastern edge of the campus at a site proximate to various academic engineering buildings and would "promote the apparent safety of nuclear energy" by being located directly on campus." - same note as above
    • Done.
  • "Student use of the reactor was replaced by commercial use to produce nuclear isotopes for medical use.[3]" - commercial use by whom?
    • The source doesn't elaborate beyond "medical uses".

Here are some comments to start. ceranthor 22:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Thanks for the comments. Only have a handful that I've left to do later. SounderBruce 04:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Sounds good - just let me know when you want me to read over it again. It looks like it's in pretty good shape. ceranthor 16:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They designed the reactor room with large windows that allowed observation from the outside, in an attempt to promote the safety of nuclear energy." - think 'promote the safety of nuclear energy' could be phrased better; I think promote is what bothers me here
  • "It will be replaced by a new computer science building." - think it's useful to mention in the lead when it will be done
  • "The research reactor was an Argonaut class reactor with an initial output of 10 kWt," - I know it's already in the lead, but it would help to reintroduce for unfamiliar readers what kWt indicates
  • First paragraph of design and functions still needs more sentence structure variety

Once these are addressed, I think it'll be ready in my opinion to be an FA. ceranthor 16:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: I've reworked the Design section and made other changes in accordance with your second set of comments. SounderBruce 08:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support then, on the prose. ceranthor 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit

All referencing appears to be in good order, based on sources of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

edit
This reads well. I made five minor proofing changes. Please revert any you think are misguided. Here is a short list of questions, suggestions:
  • NRHP infobox. If the building has been delisted, there's a slightly different infobox for delisted properties. On the other hand, it may still be listed even though it no longer exists.
History
  • Moved things around a bit to emphasize that he is the laboratory's director.
Preservation attempts
  • ¶1 "...based on an application from UW architecture student Abby Inpanbutr (then Abby Martin) submitted in spring 2008." – Slightly better as "...based on an application submitted by Abby Inpanbutr (then Abby Martin), a UW architecture student, in spring 2008."?
  • Done.
  • ¶1 (here and in the NRHP infobox) – Was the More Hall Annex delisted by the NHRP? If so, when"
  • As far as I'm aware, the building has not been delisted.
  • ¶2 "In May 2015, it was named...". – To make instantly clear which building the "it" refers to, replace "it" with "the More Hall Annex?
  • Done.
Replacement
  • ¶1 "The Board of Regents approved its construction in January 2017, which began later in the year." – Better as "In January 2017, the Board of Regents approved its construction, which began later in the year" since "which" modifies "construction" and not the date?
  • Done.
General
  • The images have alt text.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No duplink problems.
  • No problems with disambiguation links.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/More_Hall_Annex/archive1&oldid=1086353344"