Talk:58 Kent Street/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria If you disagree with any of my suggestions, please feel free to discuss the issue. Once complete, I will be claiming this review for points in the 2018 Wikicup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Lead
 * no concern - nice work.
 * History
 * "He ran the country's first pencil factory in Midtown East" - You mean it was the first pencil factory anywhere in the country, right? I suggest "In Midtown East, he ran the country's first pencil factory from..."
 * Design
 * "The serene courtyard garden" - Is this adjective necessary? If kept, I think it should be attributed to the writer of ref #2.
 * "Though, common to startups,[12] the building follows an open plan " - Awkward structure here. I suggest "The building follows an open plan common to startups,[12] ... to share, though there are alternative..."
 * Construction and opening
 * "The architect gave a public tour..." - I suggest using Sondresen's name here.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * no concern
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * no concern
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no concern
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Some minor tweaks needed, but otherwise very well done. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks! Addressed the above. Re: repeating the architect's name, I prefer to use the generalized term when the name isn't necessary—unless, of course, the issue is the ambiguity of the phrase "the architect", given the other designers involved. I don't think it would be, though. (I wouldn't expect the general reader to remember Sondresen as the architect several paragraphs later.) Anyway, added clarification. Appreciate the review, czar  02:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick responses. Happy to pass this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)