Talk:Bayard–Condict Building/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Grungaloo (talk · contribs) 23:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello again Epicgenius, I'm picking this review up too. I'll ping you once my review is completed. grungaloo (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2024 (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):

   No layout issues, a few minor comments. prose is good, issues addressed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Has ref section. One copyvio flag came up in Earwig but it was flagging direct quotations. Ref spotcheck is good, no OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage and good details

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Meets NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No stability issues

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are appropriately licensed, show nice details of the building.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Refs 9,11,12,20,28,56,60 all good.

• At the time of the Bayard–Condict Building's construction, Smith worked with John H. Edelmann, who knew Sullivan well. - Did Edelmann have any impact on this building aside from knowing Sullivan? If not, I would remove this line.
  • Nope. I think Edelmann may have been Smith and Sullivan's mutual acquaintance, but I don't know if he actually introduced them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Sullivan had initially objected to the presence of the angels - Based on what you say later, it sounds like this didn't actually happen. I'll leave it up to you, but maybe say something like "Sullivan had allegedly initially objected...". Not required for GA.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "designed to be used for offices or light manufactures as to the upper storeys, and for shops in the ground and first floors" - Is "manufactures" what the quote says or a typo (manufacturers?
  • That is what the quote said. In modern English it should actually be "manufacturers", though. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• The interior columns were also thickened, measuring between 24 inches (610 mm) across at the ground story to 13 inches (330 mm) thick on the top two stories - Use "thick" or "across" for both measurements rather than switching.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey Epicgenius, all done. This is a really well written article, only a few minor comments. grungaloo (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Grungaloo. I've fixed all of the above-mentioned issues. Epicgenius (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks great, congrats on another GA! grungaloo (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.