Talk:Master Apartments/GA1

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

Reviewer: DrStrauss (talk · contribs) 15:55, 26 February 2017 (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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Passed!  Dr Strauss   talk  15:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Passed!  Dr Strauss   talk  15:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Passed!  Dr Strauss   talk  15:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversing approval by novice reviewer
This was one of seven reviews posted within a 40 minute period. None of them were complete reviews; as the reviewer noted on his or her talk page, I didn't realise that GA was such a refined endeavour, rather just a sort of stamp. All were either failed or approved immediately, and all these actions have been reverted, including the approval here.

The article still needs to be given a thorough review by a knowledgeable reviewer, so has been put back into the reviewing pool. It's quite a nice article overall. I did notice some issues that the nominator may wish to address before a new reviewer signs on.

In particular, the article falls well short of meeting MOS:LEAD. The lead section is technically within the two or three paragraphs recommended by the criteria, but it doesn't adequately summarize the article, and contains information there that appears nowhere else. In particular, the second paragraph is not represented in the body of the article; conversely, general information about the artistic spaces in the building, the initial problems related to the Great Depression, and even its current status as a co-op have been omitted, among other significant items: the lead should draw on all the major sections of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)