Talk:Frank Lloyd Wright/GA1

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) 12:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

There's such a large number of {{citation needed}} tags (44 in total) either already present or that I have thought needed adding, so I will move to fail the GA nomination per criteria 3 of WP:GAFAIL. However! As I was previously an architect student and have a fascination for Wright I know most of the claims tagged to either be true or likely to be true. Nonetheless, they need sourcing. I will continue giving feedback below before marking the nomination as fail as I don't see a reason not to. The article is quite a good view of Wright both on his career and personal life, so once the tagging issues are fixed you're basically two steps from the finish line.

Grammar, spelling and prose all appropriate. Good balance of professional and personal summary.
I'd maybe put the last sentence of the first paragraph as the second sentence, as it seems a bit more natural to talk first about how massively influential he was and then about his philosophy. This would also flow more smoothly to talking about the Prairie school.

I'd suggest merging the two paragraphs on the father and mother.
The first sentence in the Education subsection is quite long and has many subclauses. I'd recommend dividing it into three, with the first two being In 1886, at age 19 he wanted to become an architect. He was admitted to the University of Wisconsin–Madison as a special student. The reason why I think the special student clause should be on its own is I don't really understand what that means and thus it probably needs explanation (i.e. is it a special-needs admission, a scholarship admission, a legacy admission, etc.).

For that matter, Sullivan showed very little respect for his own employees as well. I'd use Additionally, as it is simpler English but I'll leave that choice to you.

Although Olgivanna had taken no legal steps to move Wright's remains and against the wishes of other family members, as well as the Wisconsin legislature, in 1985, Wright's remains were removed from his grave by members of the Taliesin Fellowship, cremated, and sent to Scottsdale, where they were later interred in the memorial garden. This sentence has too many commas. I'd recommend dividing it into two sentences and simplifying the phrasing.