Talk:More Hall Annex/GA2

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

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 19:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Pleased to pick this up.KJP1 (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 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.
 * Lede
 * No comments on prose but see 1(b), below.
 * Design and functions
 * "The building was designed by a consortium of university faculty known as The Architect Artist Group (TAAG) to be prominent on the campus and a "crown jewel" for the university's engineering department." - A few things: "a consortium of university faculty" - "a consortium of university faculty members"? Also, should you be explicit that the members were all, or all but one, members of the UoW faculty? Lastly, you've got two things hanging off the verb, the architects and their aims. Would something like this flow better: "The building was designed by a consortium of UoW faculty members, The Architect Artist Group (TAAG), to be a prominent feature on the campus and a "crown jewel" for the university's engineering department."?
 * ✅ Done
 * "proudly showcasing the goings-on inside." "goings-on" reads oddly here. Would "activity" or "activities" be better?
 * ✅ Done
 * "a 3-short-ton (2,700 kg) crane" - as a non-American reader, a "short-ton" was new on me. I see Wikipedia has an article, without the hyphen.  Should you link it?
 * ✅ Done. The short ton is better known as the "ton" in the U.S., so I've piped the link.
 * History
 * "using the influence of the nearby Hanford Site as well as.." Is influence the right word here? "expertise"?
 * ✅ I've completely re-worked the sentence to match the newspaper article's description of the first class of students.
 * "The building would be designed by prominent architects.." Is "prominent unnecessary and a little POV? Also, does the naming of the 3 architects cause confusion with "TAAG" above, given that they were one and the same?
 * ✅ Added mention of TAAG before naming of the architects.
 * "The regents later awarded the construction contract for the project in December to Jentoft & Forbes..." Slightly muddled? Perhaps: "In December, the regents awarded the construction contract to Jentoft & Forbes..."
 * ✅ Fixed.
 * "and "to promote the apparent safety of nuclear energy" - I'd replace the to with would to follow the earlier construction of the clause.
 * ✅ Done.
 * "four part-timers" - a little colloquial? Suggest "four part-time staff".
 * ✅ Done.
 * 1972 plutonium spill
 * "workers credited good design and careful handling to avoid a larger incident." "in avoiding a larger incident"?
 * ✅ Done
 * "The university was cited by the AEC" - Not sure about "cited" unless it was some form of official stricture. "criticized"?
 * ✅ Clarified that the AEC had cited UW for violating its license agreement, and added another consequence (from the same source).
 * Shutdown and decommissioning
 * "or shut down entirely" - "or shut them down entirely"?
 * ✅ Done
 * "was renamed to the More Hall Annex to deter thieves" - the first to is probably unnecessary and was it really to deter thieves? Surely, in the context of 9/11, terrorists were again the main concern?
 * ❌ The source cites burglary being the issue, rather than terrorists (as there was no radioactive material left at the facility by then).
 * Chronology - I find the chronology a bit hard to grasp in this section. The reactor's shut down in 1988. In this year, the roll for the nuclear engineering programme has also fallen to 23 students.  But the programme continues until 1992 and then the building converts to commercial use. So what were the students and the commercial guys doing if the reactor wasn't operating?  Unfortunately, the source is no more clear so I've no suggestions.
 * ✅ Re-ordered things into a clearer timeline. The commercial use ramped up during the 1980s while student enrollment declined, so it was never fully converted to commercial use. After the shutdown, commercial use ceased and the building became a storage closet.
 * Preservation attempts
 * "citing its place as an early Brutalist work as worth preservation" - I don't think it's the building's place that's worth saving, rather the building itself. Perhaps; "citing its place as an early Brutalist work in justifying its preservation."?
 * ✅ Done
 * "While the city appealed the decision, it allowed the demolition of the More Hall Annex to proceed." When I first read this, I was puzzled as to why the city would bother to appeal when allowing the demolition? Had they won, the building would still have gone. The sources make clear that the city was appealing the principle of whether UoW was generally exempt from historic buildings regulation. I think the article could make this a little clearer.
 * ✅ The city indeed wanted to appeal in principle to deny UW from being exempt from the regulation, but did not seek a "stay of proceedings" that would halt demolition (which would leave them financially responsible for losses/damages if the appeal failed). I've amended the text to reflect this.
 * Demolition
 * "demolish the More Hall Annex for the new computer science center" - suggest "demolish the More Hall Annex to allow for the construction of the new computer science center."
 * ✅ Done
 * b (MoS):
 * Just a few suggestions:
 * Lede
 * I'd recommend another short paragraph specifically on the building's architecture. I think the architecture, as much if not more than the history, contributed to the desire to save the building. In particular, its Brutalist style and the early and innovatory use of glass to expose the building's workings and demonstrate the "safe" nature of nuclear power, merit a summary. The sources you use, particularly the heritage listing reports, give more than enough material. Its architecture, and the resulting attempts to save it, are an important part of the article that's not fully covered in the lede. It's also a key element of the building's notability.
 * ✅ I've added a two-sentence paragarph on the design to the lead. I'm not sure if the preservation needs any more coverage in the lead, given that it is adequate in my opinion.
 * You've one citation in the lede. I think you could remove this/move it elsewhere.  Not having citations in the lede isn't a requirement of either GA or FA, but I think it's generally preferred not to have them, as material in the lede will appear in the body of the article and can be cited there.  Purely as an example, today's TFA doesn't use them
 * ✅ Done. The citation was left over from the DYK nomination last year.
 * Demolition
 * Apart from the proximity, does the single sentence on plans for a tent city, which never came to fruition, really have any relevance to the More Hall Annex?
 * ✅ It really doesn't, so I've removed the line. At the time, it seemed like there was a possibility that it would be the site of the camp, but was ultimately not chosen.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references)
 * All references are properly given. Not sure why I can access some Seattle Times (3/7/8/38/41) and The Daily (41/46/49) articles but not others, Seattle Times (9-26 inclusive) and The Daily (30). All those I can check support their associated statements in the text. I would note that Cite 42 is a little puzzling.  While it's clearly referring to More Hall, the accompanying photo is captioned "Bloedel Hall" and I'm not 100% sure it shows the right building.  But I think that's an error in the newspaper, not in this article.
 * The Seattle Times only began publishing their articles online in 1990, so earlier articles are only accessible through a private archive (which I have access to via my library card). Articles after 1990 are generally accessible, with some exceptions (especially before 2000). For citation 42, I think the picture and caption were meant to show another "endangered" building on the campus that would be affected by the More Hall Annex ruling. I've also added a link to the Daily article from 2007 (now reference 29) that I found through some archive diving.  Sounder Bruce  23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Have checked every reference that I can access (all except 5, 9-26, 30) and they're all fine. The others are all Seattle Times or UoW Daily, so are fine from a reliable sources perspective.
 * c (OR):
 * The article is very well sourced and does not appear to contain any original research.
 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):
 * The article shows no evidence of plagiarism or CVs.

3. It is broad in its scope
 * a (major aspects)
 * The article provides a comprehensive overview of the building's, relatively short but interesting, life. Only comment is in 1(b) above re. an extra paragraph in the lede.
 * b (focused):
 * The article's well-focussed, with the one possible exception detailed in 1(b) which I've asked the nominator to review.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy
 * The article holds a neutral viewpoint, particularly in relation to the building's demolition, which was clearly controversial.

5. It is stable
 * The article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * The article is well illustrated using appropriate and permissible images.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Photographs have appropriate captions.

7. Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: Overall, a very good article on an interesting building. Will be pleased to Pass once the nominator has reviewed the above suggestions.
 * Thanks for the thorough review! I'll be going through and fixing the issues you've raised over the next few days .  Sounder Bruce  22:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that all of your concerns have now been addressed.  Sounder Bruce  23:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed they have. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)