Talk:Congress Hall/GA1

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

This is a well-written article, and I found it quite interesting. I made a few slight changes as I read through it. It meets the majority of the criteria for a Good Article, but I think it might be lacking in comprehensiveness.


 * The interior of the building is described, but what about the exterior?
 * I don't have any resources that describe the exterior. I'm not sure why anybody would, as its rather unremarkable and anything I could say about it would be pretty obvious WP:OR. epicAdam(talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Has anything of note taken place there during its time as Philadelphia County Courthouse?
 * No cases are mentioned. The National Park Service only briefly mentions that it went back to be a courthouse in the 1800s before it was restored by civic groups starting in the late 1890s, which I have now mentioned. I'm also not sure if any cases were actually tried there, or if it was just used as an administrative building. epicAdam(talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What, if anything, is it used for now? It is just a tourist attraction? If so, can any information be given about that (are there tours, admission, etc.)?
 * I have added this information. epicAdam(talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A search with Google shows that the Burlington County Courthouse in New Jersey was built as a replica of Congress Hall. This might be good to add to the Legacy section.
 * Done, and added the name of the architect that designed both buildings. epicAdam(talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This site has some great information about the work done to the uilding on and after 1896. Some of that information would help.
 * Done. Great resource. epicAdam(talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article mentions that three states joined the USA while Congress Hall was the capitol. Which ones?
 * The states are mentioned in the previous section. Let me know if you think it should be repeated. epicAdam(talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I will place the nomination on hold to allow time for a little more depth to be added to the article. Any questions or comments can be posted here, as I have placed this page on my watchlist. Like I said, the article is close, but it needs to be a little more comprehensive. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have gone through your suggestions and added a good deal of information. I must admit that I had almost forgotten about the GAN! Thank you very much for the review. Best always, epicAdam(talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response to the review. The article now meets the comprehensiveness criterion for a GA. The only thing left is the short lead section. If you can add a second short paragraph to the lead with some key details from the article, I will promote this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I expanded the lead to hopefully provide a better summary of the article. Thanks for your help. Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The expanded lead does a great job of summarizing the article. I found the article to be a very enjoyable read, and I am promoting it to GA. Great job!
 * If you have a chance, it would be great if you could review a nomination in return to help reduce the backlog at WP:GAN. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)