Talk:Frost Bank Tower/GA2

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I did the previous review, which resulted in the article not being promoted. At the end of the review I told the editor I was working with that once the article was more consistent with the GA Criteria that I would happily review it again. The editor made some changes and has renominated the article so I will undertake this second reivew. Here are my concerns thus far that keep me from promoting the article as it currently stands:


 * The comment about the nose hair trimmers isn't really a controversy, it's a critique about the building's architectural design.
 * I put a template after this sentence in the same section, "The controversy is widespread across the United States."  Do you have a reference for that fact?
 * The links to Armageddononline.org and Mysteries.com appear to cite chat pages. I don't think those sites are very credible.  I could go on there and post something but it doesn't mean we can draw on it for support here.  I can't watch the Jones video at my current location as Youtube is blocked so I can't comment on the its credibility.  This section will need credible sources if it is to remain.
 * I'm not sure what is controversial about the opinion that the tower is weird and helps keep Austin weird. Again if anywhere it should be in a discussion about the architectural aspects of the building.

I hope that with these addressed the article can pass through GAC. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am responding to a poke on my talk page indicating that my concerns had been addressed.


 * Armageddononline and Mysteries.com references still link to chat pages. Not credible sources.  See WP:VERIFY for thoughts on credible sourcing.  This page states that sources that rely heavily on rumor or personal opinion are considered questionable.  Chat pages are just that, rumor and personal opinion.  Not credible for supporting assertions, especially controversial assertions.
 * I know that the editor I am working with is making every effort to bring this article to GA standing. But I can't pass it to GA with these two sources, especially given the inherent weakness of the readers opinion poll sources (which the article also relies heavily on).  I will hold the article pending resolution of this matter.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is better now than when the review started, I feel as though it does meet the GA criteria. I see that editors may wish to push this article up to FA consideration.  If that is a desire I strongly recommend that you post this article to WP:PR to start with.  I would also seek peer review at the Texas project.  Finally I would try and collaborate with an experienced FA contributor on the article rather than trying to go it alone.  WP:FAC can be a rather harsh forum.  Best of luck to you.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)