Wikipedia:Peer review/Leo J. Ryan Federal Building/archive1

Leo J. Ryan Federal Building
This article was recently passed as Good Article Status. The GA reviewer suggested that it be put up for Peer Review. Specifically, the points brought up on the way towards Featured Article Status included refreshing the prose so as to be more "sparkling". However, any other suggestions as to how to improve the quality of the article towards FA status would be most appreciated. Thank you for your time. Smee 12:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC). Some points I noticed about the article:
 * Review


 * It is incredibly well-referenced. No problems whatsoever there.
 * It is fairly short. Might need a good bit more content before FA.
 * Written well.
 * Appears to have a good structure.
 * Good use of an infobox, and 3 images.
 * Many wikilinks.

To sum up: I think that it has pretty much everything going for it, excepting length of content. If it can be expanded to 1.5 times or even twice its current size, it will breeze through FA with flying colours.

Great work and well done to all who were involved in this article! Anonymous Dissident Utter 02:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for these points. I am still trying to find a bit more info and citations from which to expand the article a bit more, but once that's done, perhaps it will be ready for a higher quality status.  Smee 02:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I think it most certainly will be. Anonymous Dissident  Utter 02:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mcginnly | Natter 09:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Autoreview by mcginnly
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Guide to layout.[?]
 * This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

There's some pretty big gaps there - I'm not comfortable with the GA status as it stands. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments by mcginnly
 * Whilst the article purports to be about the Leo J. Ryan Federal Building, it focusses almost exlcusively on the contents and functions of the building rather than it's architecture. We need some hard facts about it's architecture.
 * 1) Who built it - contractor and architect?
 * 2) How long did it take?
 * 3) What was the budget?
 * 4) What materials is it constructed from?
 * 5) What style is it in?
 * 6) "As a primary research source for Asian-Pacific immigration, environmental, Naval, Native American,[2] as well as other aspects of American history" - is this reflected in any way in the architecture?
 * 7) What is the organisational layout?
 * 8) The landscaping looks interesting - can we describe it?
 * 9) Context - "The Leo J. Ryan Federal Building is surrounded by a cyclone fence" - has it always been like this or just after the oklahoma bombing. - where does it sit in the city - what part did it play in the urban fabric?
 * 10) Why is it in San Bruno - is it to isolate it?
 * 11) Any chance of a plan?
 * 12) What's the floor area?
 * 13) Is it single story, double story?

Also Regards --Mcginnly | Natter 15:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the lead needs some work - it contains information not in the body text
 * 2) "It would take 40 people approximately 100 years to microfilm all of the records currently available at the National Archives and Records Administration division of the Leo J. Ryan Federal Building" - this is rather spurious and unencylopedic, the earth article does not contain information about how many paper clips laid end to end would be required to encircle the earth. Did you mean to talk about an ongoing programme to microfilm the records - is it being done? - why aren't they scanning? - how long will it take?
 * 3) I confess I'm ignorant of US legislation - is a legislative act required for all renamings of public buildings? This is quite surprising - the artilce could be globalised by explaining this.
 * 4) "A San Mateo County publication identified the building as a "local treasure." - on what ground (the contents presumably)
 * 5) who or what are "Interactive Resources"
 * 6) "only Member of Congress to die in the line of duty." a first scan of this and I assumed he died in WWII - I had to check his article to find out the actual circumstances - a one sentence explanation of his death probably wouldn't be inappropriate here.
 * 7) What's a "cyclone fence" - can we link it, stub it or describe it - it may be common knowledge in the US, but I can only guess what it is.
 * 8) The article doesn't seem to have a beginning, middle and end. I'd take all of the facts and rearrange them in an order that leads from one to the other - chronological would be fine - but at the moment, to end with a technical fact about temperature, jarrs and leads me to think "well is that the current state of the building - has the environment always been maintained at these level........."
 * 9) Are there any plans for the future.
 * These are all good points, and I will begin to address them. As to the quality of the article, I can only say for the time being that two other editors - the other commentator, above, and the original GA reviewer, both wrote positively on the article's quality, both here on this page and on the talk page of the article itself.  I will take a look at some of these points in more detail to improve the quality of the article further.  Of course, if you find more citations to address some of these points as well, by all means.  Yours, Smee 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC).