Talk:Elmwood Tower/GA2

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 03:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to pick this review up. It looks like you've addressed the issues that caused the quickfail and I can't see anything that would trigger another, so I'll give this a full review. I'll ping you in a few days once my review is done! grungaloo (talk) 03:18, 4 February 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):
 * See comments Prose is good, complies with MOS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * AGF on sources that are behind paywalls. No copyvio detected.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * See comments, a few extra details should be added I had assumed the sources had some of this info - spot check showed they did not. This is a good coverage of what seems to be available on this building.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * Really limited image options unfortunately. This seems to be the only free use image available.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * There's a few cases of WP:REFCLUTTER in the third and fourth paragraphs of the history section. I haven't checked the refs yet, but Most of the refs are paywalled, so I'd suggest checking if they're all needed or if some contain redundant information.
 * ✅, I was slightly more granular with the citations. If you're having trouble accessing them, consider applying to WP:TWL for free access


 * Infobox should have Type, Architectural Style, Named For, Designed by, Constructed by, Renovated date. Since you mention this info in the text it makes sense to add it to the infobox.
 * ✅, I didn't add Named for since I didn't see where that came from.


 * "the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) granted the largest mortgage to the Midwest in their history to the project," - This is confusingly written, "largest mortgage to the Midwest" specifically. The mortgage was given to the project and not the "Midwest". Suggest a rewrite.


 * "and was originally constructed to house members and their families." - Constructed to be occupied by house members? Seems to be missing a word. - wow did I misread this, no change needed.
 * Coolio


 * First line in description, ref #2 about the height should go after punctuation MOS:CITEPUNCT.
 * ❌, Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis., this applies to the templated info since its disputed information. I can't add a citation inside a covert template.


 * "but following renovations and room combinations," - Add a date for these renovations.
 * ❌, source only states The building originally had 320 units, but many have been combined, and there are now 219. Last week saw only six vacancies.


 * "While not a condo, residents purchase leases that they can later sell" - Suggest moving this before the sentence about cost, makes more sense to understand they're leases, and then what the cost is.


 * "and the building includes a parking garage, 4 elevators, a library, dining space, and a 4-acre garden" - Suggest making this its own sentence, doesn't really flow from the primary clause.


 * "follows a modernist style of architecture." - This wikilink should point to modern architecture.


 * "One hundred residents, approximately one third of the total occupants, had to be rescued by firefighters, ..." - This is a fairly complex sentence with a lot of parentheticals. I'd recommended splitting it in two or simplifying it if you can.


 * "including a 19 year old man and the owner of a local utilities company" - Are these 2 different people? If they are, you can swap the order they're listed in so it sounds less like it might be one person.


 * "In 2009, the building was renamed..." - Add why it was renamed.
 * ❌, no source mentions why.

Hey again, I'm finished my review, see comments above. Feel free to reply to them inline if you'd like. If there's any questions let me know. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 01:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * , that should address everything. There are a few things that I didn't do, along with rationals to why. Thanks for the review! 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 01:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I've managed to spot check some refs and they look good - I realize I was assuming the sources had more info, so I agree with your rationale for not making some of the changes I suggested. Other fixes look good, and I'm happy to promote this. Congrats! grungaloo (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)