Talk:Rohm and Haas Corporate Headquarters/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rohm and Haas Corporate Headquarters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Almost there; very close to passing, but there are a couple very minor issues. I put the article on-hold for those issues to be addressed. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I hopefully made the sentence about the facade sound better.
 * The "considered one of the best examples of the International style" statement is referenced so I don't think it violates NPOV. The reference is a news source and does not say who says it and implies the building is generally considered a great example of the style.
 * I don't understand how "the dean of architecture and planning" sounds POVish, can you please explain? Thanks for the review. Medvedenko (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)