Talk:Gaviidae Common/GA1

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

Reviewer: Oldsanfelipe (talk · contribs) 09:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi I will be reviewing the article. Please follow the review page for updates. is following the review and may make contributions. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have finished my review of Gaviidae Common. Please refer to my comments and questions below. I am putting the review on hold to give you time to respond. Thank you for the opportunity to review the article. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – Hey, thanks for the review. I will begin addressing the comments this weekend if that is alright with you. Thanks again, Carbrera (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC).
 * Carbrera, Good to hear from you. Starting this weekend is ok. This is a very old nomination, so I would understand if you need some extra time to reboot. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * – Thank you for your patience during the review process. I addressed a few of your comments within the article and also came up with some questions for you; if I'm not mistaken, you seemed to have taken care of the derivation of the Gaviidae name within the lead? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, hen it comes to very last sentence in the article, perhaps I confused you with the wording – Minneapolis' City Center (what the source says) and 33 South Sixth (what I wrote in Wikipedia article) are the same building. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps this is why you added the OR tag at the end?
 * As for mentioning what "Cesar Pelli characterizes as 'the major entry to Saks'", were you referring to an art piece? Also, I'm assuming you're suggesting for this piece of information to be placed in the 'Design and layout' section? For your last two questions, I'm afraid that I would not consider Gaviidae Common notable enough to be included within a design context of architectural history; although, I believe I covered a bit of Gaviidae's relation to its site with the statement regarding what used to stand in its place. And lastly, Nicollet Mall is a pedestrian route with bus traffic only so perhaps this should be mentioned as well – and if so, perhaps in the 'History' section towards the beginning? I look forward to replying to you. Thanks so much, Carbrera (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I had intended to answer today. I'll have a detailed response sometime Tuesday. Cheers, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I have some new questions about the numbers used in the article. I apologize for not vetting these numbers in my first comments. The article uses 349,756, and the source is the Brookfield Properties brochure, where is says, “GLA 349,756.” What does GLA stand for? Rounded square footage figures cited in the brochure’s site plan are 118,000, 118,000, 119,000, 119,000 – just for the two anchor clients. This is over 474,000 square feet. I believe that adding the numbers from all of the other spaces in the site plan brings this number to 545,000 SF. That’s for retail alone on just the street and skyway levels. Elsewhere, the article states that total leasable space for retail and office is 443,000 SF spread out over five floors. So I have doubts about the numbers for leasable space. Furthermore, these figures can change over time based on renovations and re-figurations. The Brookfield Properties brochure appears to predate 2012 as it includes Neiman Marcus as an anchor tenant.

'Reply to if I'm not mistaken, you seemed to have taken care of the derivation of the Gaviidae name within the lead? Please correct me if I'm wrong.' Yes, I believe the copy edits I made regarding the derivation of the name “Gaviidae” solve the issue. The edit to the body of the article was based on the source already cited. My edit to the lede was consistent with this. No action needed.

'Reply to Also, when it comes to very last sentence in the article, perhaps I confused you with the wording – Minneapolis' City Center (what the source says) and 33 South Sixth (what I wrote in Wikipedia article) are the same building. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps this is why you added the OR tag at the end?'

There is a problem with making certain claims based solely on a primary source. This is Pelli’s firm talking about its own work. The same source supported two other segments, but these were more restrained uses of a primary source. The first claimed that Cesar Pelli was the architect for Commons I and the second quoted some straight-forward descriptions of material and features. I thought these were appropriate uses of the brochure. In the third instance, however, it supported a bold claim about one of the skyways. The article repeats Pelli’s claim that the skyway is a piece of “public art.” This claim should be supported by reliable secondary source, such as a third party expert in architecture or urbanism. This source is appropriate to support that Pelli and Armajani designed the skyway.

Reply to "As for mentioning what "Cesar Pelli characterizes as 'the major entry to Saks'", were you referring to an art piece? Also, I'm assuming you're suggesting for this piece of information to be placed in the 'Design and layout' section?''

The Pelli brochure says, “A stone-and-glass turret marks the major entry to Saks, the turret’s bronze detailing and translucent awnings welcome pedestrians into the store and Gaviidae.” “Stone-and-glass turret” and “translucent awnings” are both descriptive, so sourcing it from the brochure should be ok. “Welcome pedestrians into the store and Gaviidae” suffers the same problem as the characterization of the skyway as “public art.” Looking at this feature through Google Street View, it does not seem to be as remarkable as Pelli makes it to be. I will leave it to your judgement whether it should be mentioned in the Design and layout section. No action needed.

Reply to For your last two questions, I'm afraid that I would not consider Gaviidae Common notable enough to be included within a design context of architectural history; although, I believe I covered a bit of Gaviidae's relation to its site with the statement regarding what used to stand in its place. OK. No action needed.

Reply to And lastly, Nicollet Mall is a pedestrian route with bus traffic only so perhaps this should be mentioned as well – and if so, perhaps in the 'History' section towards the beginning? Only if you are aware of a good secondary source which talks about a connection between Gaviidae Commons and its access to the pedestrian route or bus route. I had thought of a mall as a covered plaza or covered walkway. So this was just based on my misunderstanding. No action needed.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * – Hey. I removed the "was designed as a 'public art' piece by both" quotation and replaced it with a more neutral "was designed in collaboration between". During some free time I had in between my college courses today, I visited a library in hopes of discovering some new sources for the article but I came up with nothing.
 * Thanks for making the change. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In your more recent comments, I'm positive that the 118,000 and 119,000 figures are totals. As in, the total square footage on both floors of Neiman Marcus was 119,271 and the total square footage of Saks Off With was 118,338. I'll add more replies very, very soon. Carbrera (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I also ran the numbers under your premise, and the retail space totals less than 308,000. Unfortunately, that's still a large difference. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – Thanks. In this case, do you have any suggestion for which source should be used to quote the leasable space at Gaviidae then? Carbrera (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC).
 * Let me take another look. 11:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – Sorry, I never got the notification of your ping. I sincerely appreciate your several contributions to the article's main space. Carbrera (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC).

Reset As you can see from my latest edits, we both missed many details from sources referenced in the article. Most importantly, the article contained serious factual errors regarding the ownership status and occupancy status of Gaviidae Common I. To summarize, Nightingale Properties purchased Common I, then replatted the property in order to sell parts of the building. So the top three floors "went condo." YMCA is not a tenant: it owns it own space. What follows is a to do list: Please let me know if you have any questions, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at all of my recent edits and re-read the associated sources
 * Copy edit the new material
 * Clean up and format the infobox
 * Remove all references to leaseable space, including those in the infobox
 * Do web searches covering the last few years to see if Nightingale Properties has sold other subdivisions of Common I
 * Rewrite the lede to better summarize the body of the article based on these changes

&, checking in since the last edit here was more than a month ago. What is the status? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * - Ah you're right. I believe all I have left to do is some reading through and copy editing. Thanks for the reminder. Carbrera (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC).
 * – How would you feel about removing the majority of references to leasable space, minus the total square footage of the former Saks & Neiman Marcus stores since they are basically set in concrete in the Brookfield Properties brochure? Carbrera (talk) 02:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC).
 * - Hey, it seems that Oldsanfelipe has taken a little break from editing. I don't want to speak on his behalf, but I believe this review was decently close to being wrapped up. How should this be handled if he does not return to editing in the near future? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

Preliminary comments
The article is generally well-written, though I have made some copy edits. I noted one inaccuracy and made a correction, otherwise the article appears at a first reading to be factually correct and well-sourced, though I have tagged one statement. I will read the article a second time while checking details against the sources. Generally the article succeeds at describing the history of an evolving and complex development.

Quick fail criteria

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. At standards or close to standards


 * It contains copyright infringements. All quotes are properly attributed and scaled consistently with fair use. All images have proper Creative Commons licences.


 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. Added one citation needed tag
 * The lead contains this statement, "the mall occupies 443,000-square-foot (41,000 m2) of retail and office space..." This would not require a citation if it were stated and sourced in the body of the article or in the infobox. Because the developer can expand or contract the amount of leasable space, this needs a somewhat recent source and the article needs to indicate in what year this measurement is cited. I will continue the review while this is being addressed.


 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. Stable

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * The lead should better summarize what's in the body of the article. For example, it should make some mention of Saks Fifth Avenue as the original anchor client. It probably belongs in the same paragraph as the other anchor clients. ✅
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: I unchecked this as I have raised questions about the leasable space. The characterization of the skyway as 'public art' should be supported by a reliable secondary source or removed.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Need source for total leasable space.
 * The last sentence is not supported by the source cited, so might be original research, "The skyway adjoining Gaviidae Common I to 33 South Sixth was designed as a 'public art' piece by both Pelli and Iranian American architect Siah Armajani." This is also the kind of statement which should be supported by a source other than a real estate developer or property management company. Not an OR issue.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * There is no mention in the article of what Cesar Pelli characterizes as "the major entry to Saks."
 * Two items are mentioned in the lead, but not in the body: 1. total leasable space (see comment about sourcing) and 2. Derivation of the Gaviidae name. There is a question about the accuracy of the leasable space figures, but these are not scope problems.
 * Question: Was there an attempt to find sources which place the design within the context of architectural history, say with Covered passages of Paris, or is Gaviidae Common not notable in that way?
 * Question: Was there an attempt to find sources which place the design within the context of the history of the neighborhood, or is Gaviidae Common not notable in that way? Is Nicollet Mall a street or a plaza, and how does Gaviidae Common relate to it?
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * The article is at times detailed, but the subject matter demands it.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * The article is balanced relative to the sources. The article notes interesting features of the project while acknowledging the challenges it has faced as a real estate development.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Hello. I read through the review and the entire article. I also checked the sources and other GA criterias and everything checks out. Please review the changes I made and let me know if you have any questions. Before passing the article, I noticed that the parking spots in the infobox is unsourced. Per WP:INFOBOXCITE, information in the infobox requires a source and mention elsewhere in the body (similar to the lead). Please ping me when this is fixed. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 20:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: The article is incredibly well-referenced. But from an edit source mode, it is hard to navigate, read, or edit. Would you be interested using the Template:SfnRef format? I can run a software that will move all references to the References section. I did this for my most recent GA. If you click the Edit source mode, you'll see the difference. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 20:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts on my message above? MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 14:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * GAN has passed. I removed the only concern with the article. The ref formatting was kept. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 19:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * , what script do you use to move the references? That could be useful; as you say, it's a pain to edit when the text is cluttered up with refs. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I use the User:Cumbril/Reference Organizer script. It is easy to use and very useful. Let me know if you cannot figure it out. I've copied the instructions below. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 22:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To use this script: Copy the text below, then  [ click here] , paste the line, and hit the Publish changes button.
 * Thanks, looking forward to an opportunity to try it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looking forward to an opportunity to try it out. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)