Talk:Bayard–Condict Building/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 23:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, I'm picking this review up too. I'll ping you once my review is completed. grungaloo (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * No layout issues, a few minor comments. prose is good, issues addressed
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Has ref section. One copyvio flag came up in Earwig but it was flagging direct quotations. Ref spotcheck is good, no OR.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Good coverage and good details
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Meets NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No stability issues
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are appropriately licensed, show nice details of the building.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Refs 9,11,12,20,28,56,60 all good.
 * - Did Edelmann have any impact on this building aside from knowing Sullivan? If not, I would remove this line.
 * Nope. I think Edelmann may have been Smith and Sullivan's mutual acquaintance, but I don't know if he actually introduced them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Based on what you say later, it sounds like this didn't actually happen. I'll leave it up to you, but maybe say something like "Sullivan had allegedly initially objected...". Not required for GA.
 * Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Is "manufactures" what the quote says or a typo (manufacturers?
 * That is what the quote said. In modern English it should actually be "manufacturers", though. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * - Use "thick" or "across" for both measurements rather than switching.
 * Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, all done. This is a really well written article, only a few minor comments. grungaloo (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review . I've fixed all of the above-mentioned issues. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks great, congrats on another GA! grungaloo (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)