Talk:Comcast Center/GA1

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

Okay. Pass upon follow-up review. In the meantime, try to discuss the the text below that, as of this entry, still doesn't have a strike-through. Even GA articles can be improved. Good job! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Review of version as of 00:18, 11 May 2009 per WP:WIAGA


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose/grammar/spelling: (May 13) /  (May 21)
 * First and foremost, the article is hampered mostly by a lack of commas. Several introductory elements (especially dates) are not followed by a comma, nor are commas used to separate several appositives and independent clauses. There are too many to mention, and I really can't have a hand if fixing them without contributing too much to an article I am reviewing. But, a good copyedit of the entire article should fix all of this. - Guess I'm a liar. Although the comma issue was prevalent, it was still an easy one to fix. The few other prose-related matters still need to be fixed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Read more in the comments below.
 * Thanks for the help, understanding comma placement isn't one of my strengths. Medvedenko (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: (May 13) /  (May 20)
 * Try to add page numbers to references that use periodical articles that are not accessible through internet links (or better yet, see if there are links available to said articles).
 * Ref 19 is a dead link. The only thing it sources independently is the Comcast Center's official opening date, so simply try to find another source for this.
 * ✅ Journal refs are from very reliable and accessible sources; adding page numbers isn't essential, but would still be a nice little improvement. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Medvedenko (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you worked hard finding the "accessmylibrary" material, but including external links which require registration is discouraged (see WP:ELNO). The links as is have no effect on preventing this article's potential for GA status (read above). - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Very well done. Read the suggestions below.
 * B. Focused: (May 13) /  (May 21)
 * Each section of the article has just the right amount of descriptive detail. Two qestions though: Why does the article treat the "Table 31" restaurant (it is mentioned in two separate sections) as so much more noteworthy than the other restaurants in the building? And no one who is mentioned as having an association with the restaurant is linked. Are they notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article? Also, the article mentions the building's 58 floors and "56 of which are occupiable" >>> Is it 56 floors of office space and retail and two maintenance floors?
 * I gave Table 31 the level of attention it appeared to get in the news media. The attention mainly due to who is running the restaurant who are well known Philadelphia area restaurateurs. One chef, Perrier, probably is article worthy (he currently is a redirect to his most famous restaurant) though my interest and knowledge of this subject is limited. I can only assume the other floors are mechanical, but without a reference that confirms this I left it out.Medvedenko (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's only three sentences, but it could perceived as ever-so-slight connective trivia by associating Brasserie Perrier with the Comcast Center ...What's the best way to integrate the Table 31 info into article so that it fits within the context of the subject? Also, what the other two floors are for isn't really a make-or-break issue; just curious as to whether or not such info was available for inclusion. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I better integrated the info into the article. Medvedenko (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Overall, the article's focus is well distributed. Still, try to clarify this so that it doesn't look like it's leaning away from the overall focus of the Tenants section ...Does the restaurant attract more people to the Comcast Center? Does it add to the notability of the building because the chefs are famous? etc. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * C. Fair representation without bias:
 * However, try to fix "Tenants attracted to One Pennsylvania Plaza because of the tax breaks would cause more vacancies in other Center City skyscrapers." From reading the source, this is something that HRPT Properties Trust claimed. This needs to be clarified as such so that it doesn't appear to be an independently objective statement. Also, has enough time passed since the building opened for this to have been proven true or false?
 * I clairified where the statement come from. The vacancy belief has since proven false I'll figure out a place to put this info soon. Medvedenko (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - SoSaysChappy (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Great images, all original works of editors. Should the HDR photograph be stated as such in its caption? Better! I honestly thought it was a painting when I first looked at it. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a painting at first too. Medvedenko (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Very informative article. I definitely see this as being a GA article within a week. A good thorough copyedit is the biggest priority in accomplishing this. Also try to address some of the other issues mentioned above and below.

Prose/grammar/spelling

 * "The designation would exempt tenants from most taxes for fifteen years as a way encourage development in disadvantaged areas." >>> Should be to encourage.
 * "Giving the Comcast Center the designation was supported by many state and city officials who hoped to keep corporations within Philadelphia, but were strongly opposed by other building owners who felt the building would have an unfair advantage in attracting tenants." >>> Should be was strongly opposed (sentence mentions building owners as opposing only one thing - the potential designation).
 * $US400 >>> US$400
 * "...whose Centre Square offices Comcast was considering moving out of..." >>> This needs to be reworded. Parenthetical elements, like sentences, should never end with a preposition. Maybe simply saying "Comcast's landlord at Centre Square" would be best (?)
 * In the Controversy section, there's a mention of the "Circa Center". Is this a typo of the aforementioned "Cira Centre" or is it a different Philadelphia building entirely? Also, in regard to the Cira Center, it is spelled "Center" in the article and "Cira Centre" in the navbox.
 * "Not long after Governor Rendell released US$30 million from the Redevelopment Assistance Budget to Liberty Property Trust." >>> This is an adverbial clause/incomplete sentence; "Soon afterward(comma)" would fix that, and stating a specific time frame would be even better.
 * Germantown High School Drum Line >>> "Drum Line" is not part of the wikilink. Is this the complete name of a specific performance group? If not, it needs to read "drum line" (without caps)
 * It is the name of the group. I only linked the school name, but I can link the whole name to the school if you prefer.
 * Whatever you or anyone else might think is best. Just curious as to whether or not "drum line" should have been capitalized. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * eighty percent >>> 80 percent; not crucial, but double digit integers can be written numerically.
 * "sun" should be "Sun"
 * "The tower's entrance is 110 feet (34 m) tall winter garden." >>> Supposed to be "The tower's entrance is a 110 feet (34 m) tall winter garden."?
 * "Even though the bill died" >>> "Even though the bill was not approved" sounds better.
 * "announced it planned" >>> "announced its plan"
 * "Among the locations Comcast was considering were staying in Centre Square or moving to a new building such as the Cira Center or One Pennsylvania Plaza." >>> This is kinda sloppy; maybe "Comcast was considering staying in Centre Square, while also contemplating moving their headquarters to the new Cira Center building or One Pennsylvania Plaza." (?) It might also help to clarify which location they preferred the most.
 * Good work on this one. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The kasota stone was changed to a lighter granite and a short pyramidal roof was added." >>> It might help to clarify that this was part of the redesign. Alone, it could be misinterpreted within the narrative of the article as the building already entering the construction phase.
 * "The bill to give the site KOZ status was defeated" >>> Again, this wording seems odd. It implies that the bill was somehow involved in a competition. "In November 2004, House Republicans in the Pennsylvania General Assembly decided to not bring the KOZ bill to a vote." seems to suffice.
 * "The plumbers union opposed the waterless urinals because they claimed were unsanitary and that they would provide less work for the plumbers." >>> "'Because' clauses" are discouraged. Try "The plumbers union opposed the waterless urinals, claiming they were unsanitary and would provide less work for the plumbers."
 * To prevent the tower from swaying too much in the wind the Comcast Center contains a 300,000 gallon double-chambered concrete tuned liquid column damper. Comcast Center's liquid column damper is the largest in North America. >>> Would read better if the sentences were merged; "To prevent the tower from swaying too much in the wind, the Comcast Center contains a 300,000 gallon double-chambered concrete tuned liquid column damper, the largest such damper in North America."
 * "...87 private space underground parking garage." > This threw my mind off for a second. It might read better if reworded along the lines of "a private underground garage with 87 parking spaces."
 * I hope moving the word "private" addresses why you were confused.


 * "Another part has cranes and machinery form a clock which tells the correct time of day. >>> Another part has would read better as images of.
 * It sounds to weird having it like that to me, I tired making it sound nicer in a different way.
 * How about ..."Another part of the installation displays images of cranes and machinery forming into a clock which tells the correct time of day."? - SoSaysChappy (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed Medvedenko (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Other

 * "Critics of the KOZ designation also accused that relationships between Liberty Property Trust and Comcast and the Rendell administration were a factor in the plan. When Rendell was mayor of Philadelphia David L. Cohen, a Comcast executive vice president, was Rendell's chief of staff, and William P. Hankowsky, Liberty Property Trust's chief executive, was director of Philadelphia's development agency. Rendell dismissed the claims saying 'Every building owner in town was a contributor to me'." >>> Try to clarify this a bit. Was anyone accused of any favoritism, bias, wrongdoing, etc.?
 * I believe I have claified this statement. Medvedenko (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "curse" portion seems to meander a bit. Try tidying it up and mention that the curse began in 1987, and mention the height of the statue and city hall in order to give readers a better perspective.
 * I made the changes. Don't know how tighter I could make it. Medvedenko (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification of what a gold LEED rating is would help.
 * Beyond saying it is the second highest rating I don't know what to say about this. Medvedenko (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)