Talk:George Carnegie Palmer/GA1

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

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to pick this up. I'll make minor copyedits as I go so please review those and revert any you disagree with. Otherwise I'll ping you once I've gone through. grungaloo (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I'm finished my review. Some issues to address - let me know if you have any questions, otherwise ping me when you're done. Thanks! grungaloo (talk) 04:02, 5 March 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):
 * Some prose issues and layout could be reworked slightly. See below. Prose is good and layout works well.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Ref section exists, no plagiarism detected. Some unreliable sources used, and some statements don't match the source, see comments below. Sources fixed and addressed, statements have been corrected.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Coverage seems good. Some building descriptions are a bit long. Good level of detail
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Meets NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Article is stable
 * 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):
 * Images are licensed properly, captions are good. Could be reordered to match with the relevant practice Images are lined up to timeline.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments
Refs 1,4,6,8,9,17 good, maybe some misinterpretations. See below.
 * ✅ Ref 26 is a blog and is flagged as unreliable. Could you please replace it?
 * ✅ Ref 35 is a blog and is flagged as unreliable. Could you please replace it? Comment: This is one of those blogs that qualifies as usable in Wikipedia (scholarly, has citations) but I am fine cutting that item from the project. I tried but could not find a digitized version of the period architectural journal that had the article about this house.
 * ✅ The images are all lumped together, could you you move them to they line up with the practice Palmer was working at when he design them?
 * ✅ Project table - Some have addresses, others don't, could you make this consistent? Comment: If the address came from the linked article about the building, I did not look for a source. New sources were added as needed. Note that there are no addresses for bridges, some campus buildings, and if the building no longer exists or was constructed before addresses were needed.
 * ✅ Project able - Make sure New York is consistently named (either New York or New York City). In some cases Manhattan is used, make sure boroughs are added consistently if you intend to use them.
 * ✅ Professional affiliations - this section could be dropped and the sentence moved to the first paragraph in Career.
 * ✅ Wood and Palmer and Wood, Palmer & Hornbostel - I would join these two sections together. They're short, and half of Wood and Palmer is just setting up for Hornbostel joining.
 * ✅ - Because you mentioned Hornbostel in the sentence before this, it sounds like this could be only referring to him. I'd try rewording to make it clear you're referring to all three.
 * ✅ - "Contributing building" sounds odd. I think the source means that it's "one of" the buildings in the Broadway-Riverside district. Comment: Not all buildings in a historic district are architecturally or historically important. "Contributing" is NRHP terminology for a building that contributes to the importance of the district and was one of the reasons for the designation of the historic district. I am changing contributing to "architecturally significant", as I think that gets us past the NRHP jargon.
 * ✅ - Ref 2, source says circa 1899?
 * ✅ - Repetition, change to "won a competition held by"
 * ✅ - To design a building for its new campus, or the entire campus? Comment: both "new" and "entire" are correct, but I have updated for clarity
 * ✅ - Not seeing where it says this in the source? Comment: It was in the first half of the article which is now correctly linked in the citation.
 * ✅ - I'd make this a blockquote.
 * ✅ - probably another blockquote.
 * ✅ - Do you have the year for the Station? For consistency.
 * ✅ - Is there a reason why this building is being described in such detail as opposed to his other works? Maybe a quick sentence about why this one is more important? I'd also shorten the description overall, this is an article about the architect and not the building.
 * ✅ - I would call just call it the Tomb of Halicarnassus, that's probably how it's best known. Comment: Good catch. I changed it to Mausoleum at Halicarnassus to match Wikipedia article.
 * ✅ - Acropolis Plan should have quotes.
 * ✅ - WP:SYN, nothing in the source seems to support that this is the reason it was selected. Needs a rewrite or to be removed.
 * ✅ - This can be joined to th previous paragraph.
 * ✅ Palmer & Hornbostel II - I would name this "Return to Palmer & Hornbostel" or something like that. The II doesn't really make sense since that's not what It was called.
 * ✅ Personal - Rename "Personal Life"
 * Could a section be added discussing his general style and methods? Comment: I have yet to find a source that gives an overview of his style and methods. I did add a detail about his primary style to the lede that does not tip into original research. I agree this section would be needed for an FA article but may not be essential for GA.


 * I believe I have addressed all of your suggestions, except for the last item (see comment). Please let me know if you have any other thoughts. And, thanks for working on this. It was one of my earlier efforts and is fun to revisit. Rublamb (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks - the changes look good and I appreciate the comments. I'm happy to promote this, congrats on GA! grungaloo (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)