Talk:B of the Bang/GA1

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

Well-written
This is reasonably well written, but its lead does not really summarise the article as it is meant to (Lead section). Most things in the lead are not subsequently mentioned or spelt out in greater detail. On the other hand no mention is made in the lead of things that should be mentioned. The lead should cover its location in central Manchester (but details including coordinates should be later); its notability in terms of its height compared to other structures in Manchester (note it is 6th highest non-building structure), the Angel and leaning tower; its name and meaning; its intended commissioning for the Commonwealth Games; the delay in its completion; and its structural problems and the possibility that it may be torn down.

I don't think "the report which may recommend that B of the Bang is dismantled" is correct.

Factually accurate and verifiable
Sources are OK, although there may be more professional comment on its artistic purpose and the success or otherwise of its design in architectural journals. If you are going to compare its height to the angel of the north or the leaning tower, you probably should give their height in the detailed section on its design.

It contains no original research
OK

Broad in its coverage
Generally OK, but as mentioned above, I would like to see more comment on its success in artistic terms.

Neutral
OK

Stable
Stable

Illustrated, if possible, by images
OK

Overall
I am putting this on hold until the lead issue is fixed (and I would like more comment on artistic aspects).--Grahame (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead fixed and now passed. I feel it should say something about artistic aspects, if these can be found, and it has some short paragraphs, but it passes the GA criteria im my opinion.--Grahame (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)