Talk:Centre Square (building)/GA1

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

This is a nice, well-written article. I did some copyediting, and a few things came up during the review:

Lead section:
 * "marked a point where" is a little awkward. Slight rephrasing would help here.

History:
 * "had ownership stake" is also awkward. an ownership stake, perhaps?
 * "in the complex since..." - "since" is a little confusing. I assume you mean "from the time", but when I read it the first time, it seemed like it meant "as a result of".
 * Some overlinking. Do the wikilinks to "renovation", "plaza", and "headquarters" aid the reader's understanding?
 * "included modernization of elevator, air conditioning and safety systems" - this is a little confusing, as there seems to be a missing word or two.

Building:
 * Some more overlinking: Philadelphia and Pennsylvania are already linked above, and "concrete" is a fairly general term that shouldn't need an explanation.
 * I would prefer that "SEPTA" is spelled out the first time, as I had no idea what it was.

Art:
 * It seems strange to mention Wolgin's art at the end of a paragraph and then describe them in the next paragraph. The sentence about Wolgin seems like it would work better as an opening sentence for the second paragraph.
 * The art seems to be a big part of Centre Square, so a brief description of the works (material, form, pictures on banners, etc.) would be nice.

Images:
 * There is no source information for the image. Is it possible to contact User:GK tramrunner229 and ask him to clarify that he took the picture (and add the information to the description page)?

Overall, the article is looking good. I'd like to look at it a little more as far as breadth of coverage goes. It seems like it would benefit from more information about what the building is used for (for example, is there information about the number of businesses in each?).

I will place the article on hold to allow for my concerns to be addressed. If I have any more thoughts, I will add them here. I am going to add this page to my watchlist, so you can reply here with any questions and/or concerns. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I rewrote the sentences you requested. I removed the link for concrete, but I feel the others are relevant enough to stay linked, if you really disagree I would be willing to change them. I contacted the author of the image requesting the information you requested. I merged the paragraphs in Art to address your issue there. (Keeping them seperate made the first paragraph too small. I'll see if I can find more information about the art pieces. There doesn't seem to be much info on the buildings tenants (current and past) but I'll see what I can do. Medvedenko (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fixes have helped. Have you been able to find anything about the art or tenants? I can understand that the tenants might be almost impossible to find, but I'm hoping that something about the art can be found. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found some more info. I added the height and material of Clothespin and the material of Calder's banners. There doesn't seem much more to say about what is on the banners beyond detailing each one which I think is beyond the scope of the article (and beyond any available references). I can not find a good source on anymore info about Milord la Chamarre. I believe I have covered every significant tenant the building has had, but if I find more info I'll add it. Medvedenko (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. If the information isn't available, it can't be added (and I agree that describing each banner in detail would be excessive). I am promoting the article. Congratulations! GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)