Talk:LeVeque Tower/GA1

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 10:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this one up. KJP1 (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * The standard of prose is high and I will Pass on this criterion, subject to review of the suggestions below.
 * Lead
 * Not so much a prose point, as an accuracy issue. The lead says it's 555 feet 6 inches high, while the Design and construction section says 555 feet 5 inches. Given the symbolic importance of those 5/6 inches, we need it right.
 * Fixed.
 * "it was designed with 600 hotel rooms in two wings as well as an attached performance venue, the Palace Theatre" - again, I'm not quite squaring this with the description in the Design and construction section. You've got the tower, and two flanking wings. But the lead suggests both wings contained hotels, while the D&c section suggests one wing held a hotel, the Deshler-Wallick, and the other, the Keith-Albee Theater. Did one wing contain both a hotel and the theater?
 * So the building had the hotel rooms fill both wings from what I can tell, and the theater is attached to one end of it.
 * "After its owner went bankrupt" - was Letz its owner, or the AIU? And which went bankrupt? Letz's entry doesn't mention bankruptcy but the History section says AIU failed in 1931. Perhaps be specific, rather than "its owner"?
 * Fixed.
 * "the tower was renamed Lincoln-LeVeque Tower in 1946, and later LeVeque Tower in 1977" - perhaps, "the tower was renamed the Lincoln-LeVeque Tower in 1946, and later the LeVeque Tower in 1977"?
 * Fixed.
 * "The tower's office space saw mixed success in attracting tenants for its early history" - perhaps, "The tower's office space saw mixed success in attracting tenants in its early history"? Although I appreciate that gives you a double "in".
 * Went for "during."
 * "As development of downtown Columbus picked up starting in the 1960s" - Perhaps, "As development of downtown Columbus picked up from the 1960s"?
 * Fixed.
 * "including a hotel, apartments, condos, offices and a restaurant" - Perhaps, "condominiums" at first mention?
 * Fixed.


 * Design and construction
 * "the tower was to be a headquarters for the organization" - did they have more than one? Perhaps, "the"?
 * Just a preference. Fixed.
 * "Its construction took place during the first wave of modern skyscraper construction in the United States." - You've got a double "construction". Perhaps replace the latter with "development" or something similar?
 * Fixed.
 * "the building took inspiration from Byzantine architecture, particularly religious buildings constructed in the 4th through 13th centuries" - at nearly 1000 years, that's a hell of a long inspiration period. Is Korom no more specific?
 * No, unfortunately.
 * "including eagles with a wingspan up to 22 feet (6.7 m), giants and angels up to 26 feet (7.9 m)" - perhaps, to clarify and get agreement between singular and plural, "including eagles with wingspans up to 22 feet (6.7 m) and giants and angels up to 26 feet (7.9 m) high"? As an aside, looking closely at the photo of the very top of the tower - and what an incredible building it is! - the very highest figures all seem to have been decapitated? Was this part of the "removal" referred to in the next sentence?
 * Fixed. And yes, they basically cut off some of the figures.
 * "Some of these were later removed after concerns of falling materials and for unobstructed penthouse views" - Perhaps, "Some of these were later removed after concerns about falling materials and to obtain unobstructed penthouse views"?
 * Fixed.
 * "An octagonal bartizan was designed at the top of the building with long, narrow loop windows, and it was topped by a dome with heraldic imagery". - It's an interesting debate as to whether that's a bartizan or a cupola? If the sources say bartizan, so be it. And what happened to the dome? Its top doesn't seem to be there now. Did they lop it off, along with the heads, when they put the antennae up?
 * The photo is from the ground, and I suspect the angle is misleading; I think the dome is there still. Anyway, just used the exact wording from the source there.
 * "Following completion, the building was lit at night to accentuate its architectural features, and its four turrets were also lit with floodlights to make a landmark for aviators at night" - not sure you need the double "at night".
 * Fixed.
 * "Later, it housed radio antennas" - "antennae"? Or is this a US/Brit thing? If is it, there's inconsistency, as you use antennae later.
 * Fixed, I think that might just be more formal language.
 * "Elevators serving the building were "micro self-leveling type," automatically controlled by push buttons and which could travel at 900 feet (270 m) per minute, which rose to the 41st floor" - this reads a little oddly. Why is "micro self-levelling type" in quotes, and the double "which" is confusing? Perhaps, "Elevators, of the micro self-levelling type, served the building, automatically controlled by push buttons and travelling at 900 feet (270 m) per minute to the 41st floor"?
 * So had to look into it a bit, a self-leveling elevator is basically one that can properly land on each floor with precision and without the manual guide of a bellhop. I imagine the implication of including this in the source was that this was new technology at the time but it doesn't explicitly state that.
 * "with 44 caissons sunk 114 feet (35 m) into the bedrock for a foundation, though 80 feet (24 m) of water using air pressure" - I don't understand the concluding clause. "Though" doesn't look right, but I'm not sure it's "through" either?
 * Ahh, fixed.
 * "signalizes" - did Ms Clarke really use this monstrosity, rather than "signals"? If she did, so must we.
 * She did, and it's actually correct, though I'd agree archaic.
 * "The building's construction coencided with a rebuilding " - "coincided".
 * Fixed.


 * History
 * "which was in the late 1920s quickly gaining prominence" - Perhaps, "which was becoming an increasingly-important industry by the late 1920s"?
 * Fixed.
 * "Central Ohio" - "central Ohio", or just "Ohio"?
 * Around these parts, Central Ohio is the proper use of the term.
 * "By the 1960s, WCOL had a broadcast room atop the tower as well" - "as well" as what? Remove?
 * Fixed.
 * "and was reorganized as American Insurance Union Inc. in 1931" - Perhaps, "and was reorganized as the American Insurance Union Inc. in 1931"?
 * Fixed. Tristan (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "During this time, the tower adopted the local pejorative as the "IOU Tower" given the financial difficulties of its owner" - Not sure the tower did the adopting. Perhaps, "During this time, the tower was known pejoratively as the "IOU Tower", given the financial difficulties of its owner"?
 * Fixed.
 * "and after his death, son Fred LeVeque" - Perhaps, "and after his death, his son Fred LeVeque"?
 * Fixed.
 * "which did not see significant high-rise construction until the 1960s. Though there was at least one major attempt to build another high-rise in the city in 1953." - Should this be a single sentence, i.e., "which did not see significant high-rise construction until the 1960s, though there was at least one major attempt to build another high-rise in the city in 1953"?
 * Fixed.
 * "but the tower itself retrained higher-than-average occupancy rates" - "retained".
 * Fixed.
 * "and the Ohio Department of Aging having was a major tenant as well." - Perhaps, "and the Ohio Department of Aging was also a major tenant".
 * Fixed.
 * "significantly hurt the building's ability to make its mortgage" - Do you "make" a mortgage, rather than "pay" or "meet" it?
 * Fixed.
 * "Leasing there, though, remained about flat" - Not sure I like this. Perhaps, "Leasing, however, remained poor and by 2009"? Or something?
 * Fixed.
 * "The partners planned about a $22 million project" - do we need the "about"?
 * Fixed.
 * "In 2012, owners announced the renovation would cost $26.7 million, and the State of Ohio provided $5 million in tax credits for the renovation" - Perhaps, "In 2012, the owners announced the renovation would cost $26.7 million, and the State of Ohio provided $5 million in tax credits to cover the shortfall"?
 * Fixed.


 * Associated amenities
 * "The building's two wings were used as an extra 600 rooms for the Deshler Hotel" - still confused by the wings, see Lead above.
 * Clear enough I hope.
 * "the hotel already had 400 rooms, which he intended to rival the other luxury hotels of the world." - who's "he"? Have we missed mentioning Deshler?
 * Fixed.
 * "the 600 rooms were accessible by a "venetian bridge" linking the two buildings" - Was it a "Venetian bridge", i.e. did it look like the Bridge of Sighs, or would it be clearer just to call it a skywalk?
 * Was the term the source used, I suspect it was a style thing.
 * "Still, the hotelier gave up the rights to the 600 rooms in the two wings of the tower, and the "venetian bridge" was demolished." - This doesn't flow so well from the previously sentence where Cole "eliminated" the 600 rooms. As an aside, is "eliminated" quite right? Perhaps something like, "The hotel rooms in the two tower wings having been vacated, the connecting Venetian bridge was demolished"?
 * Fixed.
 * "Today it is the home of the One Columbus Center" - Well, not the building, as that was demolished in the previous sentence. Perhaps, "Today the site houses the One Columbus Center"?
 * Fixed.
 * "the property fell vacant and was proposed for demolition in order to be converted to a parking lot" - Not much to convert if they'd demolished it. Perhaps, " the property fell vacant and was proposed for demolition to allow for the construction of a parking lot"?
 * Fixed.
 * "Katherine LeVeque signed CAPA to a perpetual 99-year lease on the building which will generate $2 million in all" - Not sure I get this, and to me it's a slightly flat end to a great article. Did LeVeque "assign" the lease, and does "perpetual" mean recurring? And who will it generate $2M for? All in all, I might end with the previous sentence?
 * Fixed.


 * b (MoS):
 * Just a few thoughts:
 * Infobox
 * Any reason why you head this with the original name, rather than the current name? Is it because that's what its record is titled in the NRHP? Just seems a bit confusing to me.
 * Per the note on the article, yes, it's listed as AIU citadel.
 * On a related point, the NRHP template seems to allow for quite a lot less information than, say, infobox building, where you can get more data in, e.g. Empire State Building. But it's not an issue, beyond preference.
 * Note 1
 * I'd probably head this up "Footnotes", but I'm not sure what MoS says.
 * Fixed.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references)
 * Admirably referenced throughout.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * The sources look fine. Unfortunately, I've not got access to the offline ones, and two of the major online ones, Columbus Business First and Columbus Dispatch are pay-walled. But the snippets I can get from those (and I've opened every one), together with the smaller number that aren't pay-walled, which all check out, give me confidence that the citations support the content.
 * c (OR):
 * No evidence of OR.
 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):
 * Coming up at 9.1% on Earwig, so fine here.

3. It is broad in its scope
 * a (major aspects)
 * Covers all major aspects of the building's history and significance.
 * b (focused)
 * Stays appropriately focussed on the tower, its owners, occupants and history.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
 * Perfectly Neutral.

5. It is stable
 * No evidence of edit-warring/instability.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Very nicely illustrated, with some great shots. They all look fine, with one query. The postcard doesn't have the original date, or the author. I'm assuming neither is known? I think the publishing company is actually the E.C. Kropp Co., not K.C.Kropp, which operated from 1907-1956, . Image copyright isn't my speciality, so I'll seek advice from the guru.
 * The ever-helpful and amazingly well-informed Nikkimaria has given guidance on the proper licence. I've amended in Commons and so we're good to go. KJP1 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions)
 * I might give a little more information in a couple of the captions, rather than just "Detail"?

7. Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Overall, a grand article on a very grand building, and a pleasure to review. I'll put it on hold for you to consider the comments/suggestions.
 * Thanks for looking at this one! I appreciate your thoughts. Tristan (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Passing now. KJP1 (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)