Talk:United Nations Plaza (San Francisco)/GA1

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 06:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

First reading

 * 1. Prose quality and layout
 * The material in the lead, giving the location and designers, and the purpose of its original dedication, appears to be only in the lead. This material should be moved to the body of the article and the lead should be replaced by a more adequate summary of the whole article.
 * In constructions like "Hyde-Larkin block" an en-dash rather than a hyphen should be used.
 * I'm not convinced that the overall organization of the article makes sense. In multiple places the article assumes prior context that was never provided. For instance, in the initial design section, "the fountain" implies that we know what fountain is being discussed; if the fountain is being introduced as a new context, "a" would be the correct article to use. Similarly "its historic role in the LGBTQ movement" is mentioned as justification for landmark status but never explained. The point about legal difficulty of removal of the fountain comes well before and well separated from the point about why some want to remove it.
 * As another instance, the listing of construction materials appears misplaced in the initial design section. If it were in the construction section, it would better balance that section, which currently has muvh more about the fountain than the plaza. (It could also be better as text than as a bulleted list; see WP:USEPROSE.) Similarly, parts about quotations and usage of the fountain appear misplaced in the construction section, as does talk of its removal.
 * In "The UN Plaza Fountain was also designed by Halprin" it is unclear: does Halprin here mean the person Lawrence Halprin, or the firm Halprin & Associates?


 * 2. Sourcing
 * Earwig found properly marked quotes but no problematic copying.
 * Except for the few bits in the lead, all material appears to be sourced. The sources are consistently formatted in Citation Style 1 and appear generally reliable, although many of them are primary rather than secondary. Spot-checking found no inconsistencies between sourced text and its sources.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 3. Completeness
 * I don't think the article ever gets overdetailed. However, there is one issue that I think could be covered but is mostly missing from the article: who uses this space, for what? There's a sentence about hopmeless hiding in the refurbishment section but that's not where I would expect to find it. From this story it appears that it is the site of regular farmer's markets, craft fairs, and less-frequent used book sales. Can we say something about that?


 * 4. Neutrality
 * No issues found.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 5. Stability
 * The last significant change was in August, so no issues here. No cleanup tags at issue, and no controversies on talk.
 * --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 6. Images
 * All images are relevant, properly captioned, and appear to be properly licensed. My only concern is that the two fountain images appear redundant; why do we need both? And the second fountain image is far out of line with MOS:IMGSIZE which says "upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value" for images; why does it need to be so big?
 * Still thinking about the image redundancy, but I agree re: image size. I've made both fountain images regular thumbs. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

So, overall, the organizational issues and missing information in points 1 and 3 should be fixed before this can be GA, and I have a question about image use and size, but the other good article criteria are already in good shape. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just making sure you saw this review in progress, thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the opportunity to improve the article. I sourced some more references that had been published since the last content revision (Oct 2018) and added them to the article to address the review comments. Specifically:


 * 1a. Location and designers
 * Much of the work in sourcing new references was to establish how the Market Street Redevelopment Plan and Market Street Joint Venture Architects were formed and implemented. This was added to the main body of the article, and the lede was rewritten to conform.


 * 1b. Organization
 * The article was reorganized to group related topics together. Fountain-related items were moved into a fountain-specific section, aside from a mention of the fountain as a "major civic sculpture" in the "Location and history" section. Lawrence Halprin (LH) and Halprin & Associates (H&A) were made distinct. H&A were the firm that was most responsible for the design of the plaza itself, and LH designed the fountain, as referenced in the article.


 * 1c. Construction materials
 * The bulleted list was moved into prose.


 * 3. Completeness (& organization)
 * A new section was carved out from existing prose (farmer's market, homeless) and a mention of the relationship to the LGBTQ movement was added using the new references.


 * At this point I'm not sure if it should go back through the GoCE process. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Looking pretty good to me, overall, but I'll let User:David Eppstein revisit. I thought "Current uses and events" was better as a History subsection, but this is a minor thing. Good luck, and thanks again for your work here! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Second reading
The article has been greatly reorganized and now reads and flows much better. I now only have one really minor wording issue: In construction, 2nd paragraph: "following...following..." is a little awkward.

I don't think that's enough to merit keeping this on hold while it gets fixed, so I'm passing this as GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed one use to "after" for now. Open to other options, but going ahead and archiving this discussion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)