Talk:Aula Magna (Central University of Venezuela)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Initial comments
Please could you address the following points:
 * Acoustics
 * 'The hall was named in the 1980s as one of the five rooms with the best acoustics in the world' has a tag which is still valid;
 * It took a while to find a source that isn't a dead link; there was a promising better source, but a quick UCV library search finds a book written by Beranek which claims this. diff Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 'It is also said that "the Aula Magna's interior [...] represents the high-point of Villanueva's interest in the synthesis of the arts' has a tag which is still valid.
 * The source was named in the ref, added names to article. Kingsif (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * References 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 28 contain links which cannot be reached or which go to the wrong place.
 * To disagree, all these work fine: ref 1 (link), ref 3 (link), ref 4 (link), ref 5 (link), ref 12 (link), ref 14 (link), ref 17 (link), ref 18 (link), ref 28 (link). (Refs at time of comment, from the edit on September 26th) Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead section - this is an inadequate summary of the article, and needs to be expanded, some of the information in the lead section is not mentioned elsewhere.
 * Will work on making this an accurate summary and incorporating information into the article body. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Prose - the whole article is clearly written, but some of the sentences are too long to read easily, such sentences would benefit from being split into smaller sentences.
 * Long sentences aren't errors, but may be poor style, though it all seems readable to me so I don't know where you're looking. I looked over the grammar; I made some minor tweaks but there was nothing actually incorrect. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This is an interesting article which contains plenty of references and lacks personal research, and which covers the subject. The images complement the article well.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Hel-hama 17:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Further improvements
The remaining points for bringing the article are forthcoming. They will be relatively minor and should not take too long to address, but I feel it is important that my initial comments are addressed first. I will list the remaining points in the next few days. Hel-hama 17:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The remaining area for improving the article up to the required standard to be classed as 'good' was the standard of English. The are numerous examples of poor prose, e.g.,
 * "A study published in 1955 by the Museum of Modern Art that looked at Latin American architecture also stood impressed and fascinated..."
 * "It was in the hall, during its inauguration, no less, that several thousand world leaders collectively signed the historical resolution..."
 * "In line with concerns, during a protest in July 2013 a bus was lit on fire..."
 * "In late 2014, Copred refitted the interior surface a roof slab of the Plaza Cubierta..."
 * "...and was open to changing designs..."

As the initial comments I provided were not addressed, I have failed the article based on those points.Hel-hama 18:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your initial comments weren’t serious issues, and from my replies it’s clear I was working on them. To then give extra feedback but immediately fail the nomination is just dumb. I feel like you failed this prematurely and unnecessarily, and will reopen it. I’d like for someone else to review the nomination, thank you for taking it up, though. Kingsif (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your're welcome. Good luck with the article. Hel-hama 03:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)