Talk:Constitution Center (Washington, D.C.)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A (prose):
 * "a high-rise office building" - not by the standard in most cities. Please delete "high-rise". - done
 * "Demolition faced almost all structures in Southwest Washington and was to have begun in 1950, "->"Original plans called for the demolition of almost all structures in Southwest Washington beginning in 1950," - done
 * "it in 2009 and 2010, but chose not to"->"it in 2009 and 2010, but chose not to do so." - done
 * You state the metro entrance for the first time in the Rennovation section. Describe it in the "Original structure" section. How did construction of Metro impact the building? - done
 * After much digging (ha), I found only a brief reference to the installation of the Metro station's escalator in the north arcade in the HABS survey report. That has been added to the article and cited. A three-day search in the Washington Post archives found nothing about L'Enfant Plaza Station's construction (except for brief statements of costs, which are irrelevant to this article); all that turned up was information that the Nassif Building entrance opened on time on July 1, 1977 (while a third entrance did not). That's been added and cited as well. I also added info about the Metro station entrance's temporary closure during the renovation. - Tim1965 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work! My original thought was the fact for the early years of the building two sides along 7th and D Streets were busted up by "cut and cover" construction of Metrorail lines. Racepacket (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, constructing L'Enfant Plaza station must have been a horrible engineering and construction problem. But the Washington Post has nothing on it. Nor does Zach Schrag's Great Society Subway book. Not even Ben Schumin's transit Web site has anything. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Expand lead to include current tennants.
 * Done - Tim1965 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Washington Post says 1.9 million sq ft but article says 1.4 million. Which is it?
 * Fixed - Tim1965 (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * I'm not clear about this indication of a problem with the article. Is this a reference to the square footage issue (just above), or are there additional sources or problems? - Tim1965 (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that I kick the tires on the sources after you have addressed the other areas.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Did Stone receive any awards or recognition for his design?
 * None I can find, and none are cited on the Edward Durell Stone Wikipedia page. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any fitness centers, auditoria or other amenities?
 * No indication of such on the building's Web site. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I found "310-seat auditorium ready for tenant fit-out and customization" on that page. This source http://midatlantic.construction.com/midatlantic_construction_projects/2010/1201_ConstitutionCenter.asp says it was a "10,000-sq-ft auditorium onto the courtyard plaza level."
 * Since it's not completed, should it be included? Far too often, pages on Wikipedia say, "And XYZ is being planned." Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a judgment call that you will have to make, but most office buildings do not have auditoria of that size, and it reads as if it is roughed in waiting for tenant build-out just like most other office space. It would depend on whether the press coverage of the leasing to the SEC and Comptroller of the Currency say that one of them picked it up. I am asking the leasing agent. Racepacket (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No word back yet from the leasing agent. We might be misleading the reader into thinking that the only change to the building was a new skin and HVAC system.  In fact, the new auditorium took away a significant portion of the interior courtyard area. Racepacket (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the second paragraph in the "Renovation" section mentions removal of a portion of the courtyard and expansion of the interior square footage. The source in question does not say that this was due to the auditorium. It may be true; I will search some more. - Tim1965 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Try: http://midatlantic.construction.com/midatlantic_construction_projects/2010/1201_ConstitutionCenter.asp Racepacket (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider describing relationship and access to I-395.
 * I-395 is a block away (St. Dominic's Church and a small apartment building lie between the building and I-305). The building's own Web site and a realtor site attempting to sell space in the building (neither of which passes the "reliable, neutral, third-party, published" cite test) don't say this, but do claim "easy" and "swift" access to I-395. No good reliable, published discuss the building's proximity to I-395. Southwest Freeway (which is the road in question, and became part of I-395 later) was completed in 1963—before the Nassif Building was begun. I can't find anything that says the structure was built where it was because of access to I-395, that the I-395 off-ramps were built to accommodate the building, etc. There is a warren of off-ramps (from westbound I-395) in the immediate area, traffic lights on every corner once you exit, and other obstacles. It takes time to get off I-395 and access Constitution Center (I do it every day), and there is no immediate on-ramp to I-395. Saying "I-395 is a block away" implies easy access to the interstate, but that seems to border on synthesis. Describing access to I-395 as "easy" (or "difficult") seems a challengeable claim which I can't find proper cites for. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps include names of the two art works.
 * Done. Artwork names added. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps state DOT's new location after it vacated the building. (It moved to new office building construction at 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, adjacent to the Navy Yards Metro station and the new baseball stadium.)
 * Footnote about where DOT moved to has been added. - Tim1965 (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Prior to the rennovation, there was not retail space on the ground floor other than some food vendors. How is the ground floor being leased now? One of the professed advantages to having leased office buildings instead of federally owned buildings was that the retail space on the ground floor would create more of a street-scape and would attract pedestrian shoppers. Do you have any press coverage of the street-scape at present?
 * No indication of retail on the building's Web site, and no visible retail anywhere on the ground level. (Retail does not necessarily violate the ISC level IV security standards, but this building has only two public access point—the 7th Street and D Street lobbies—and the interior courtyard is now closed to the public.) I'm reluctant to prove a negative here, or engage in original research or synthesis. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. My street scape source pre-dates 9/11 Racepacket (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article represents significant work by its author, but it needs a bit of additional work. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article represents significant work by its author, but it needs a bit of additional work. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article represents significant work by its author, but it needs a bit of additional work. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I also got rid of the redlink in the article (a big no-no for any GA candidate) by creating a page for the sculptor Richard Deutsch. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a nice thing to do. However, for your information, red links are not prohibited at the GA-level. I will read the article and check the sources again based on your improved version. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

April 8 reading
I think we are almost done. Racepacket (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Add that http://www.constitutioncenterdc.com/building.html says its 1500 secured parking spaces
 * Add that DOT completed the move out of the building in June 2007 http://www.constitutioncenterdc.com/ownership.html (The main text says DOT threatened to leave in 2000, but doesn't explain that DOT stayed until 2007.)
 * I leave it up to you as to whether it is worth reporting that Mid-Atlantic Construction Magazine awarded the building its 2010 "Project of the Year - Renovation/Restoration" http://midatlantic.construction.com/midatlantic_construction_projects/2010/1201_ConstitutionCenter.asp
 * Registered with the Green Building Council for Gold LEED Certification
 * Perhaps also metion the L'Enfant VRE station a block away?
 * Footnotes 1,2,3,4,21,25,26,28,29 and 30 need Retrieved or accessdates.


 * On April 9, I added the following:
 * 1500 secured parking spaces underground
 * DOT completed move out of Nassif Building in 2007
 * Registered with Green Building Council for LEED certification
 * Anything else needs adding (besides the 2010 Project of the Year fact, the L'Enfant VRE station, and the "Retrieved/access dates" of the footnotes stated above)? Jim856796 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are close. Need footnote for LEED Gold. If you don't think that 2010 Project of the Year is worth adding, don't do it. Let's wrap up. Racepacket (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The LEED Gold certification info is found on this page: (You may want to click on the link leading to the page). Now all that is left are the L'Enfant VRE station, and the "Retrieved/access dates" of the footnotes. Jim856796 (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The parking garage and LEED certification claims have been footnoted. I added the information about the auditorium and cited it. The DOT footnote says that DOT moved out in June 2007, and it is third-party cited (which is better than citing the biased Constitution Center Web site). VRE Station info was added, and cited.  "Accessed on" dates for outstanding linked sources were added. (I removed one link because it was to a pay-per-view site, and that's a no-no under citation and external link guidelines.)  I also added info on two awards the building has won. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Congratulations on a good article. Racepacket (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)