 | Peck Building is currently an Art and architecture good article nominee. Nominated by WikiFouf (talk) at 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Repurposed textile factory in Montreal |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Peck Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: WikiFouf (talk · contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pencilsforall (talk · contribs) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I cool article. I'll add a table with comments and notes when I finish the review. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Pencilsforall thanks so much!:) WikiFouf (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Spot check of sources:
- Source [3] Can't access to assess
- Source [4] in French
- It appears to be largely English, still, it checks out.
- Source [6] Can't access to assess
- Source [7] Can't access to assess
- Can be accessed through the Wayback Machine.
- Source [11] in French
- Checks out, the employee growth is telling.
- Source [13] Confirmed information
Hi again- I'm asking for a second opinion primarily because I wasn't able to do a spot check of the sources that were in French. Hopefully the second opinion can read the French sources! Pencilsforall (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Pencilsforall All good, thanks for your work! Some of these sources are accessible through the Wikipedia Library, by the way, it's a great resource if you haven't signed up:) WikiFouf (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- See my second opinion comments above. I've also clipped sources 3 and 6 for you to confirm, @WikiFouf. Good luck with the review! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Averageuntitleduser Didn't know you could do that (the clippings), thanks a lot! WikiFouf (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Of course! They're rather handy.
Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Of course! They're rather handy.
- @Averageuntitleduser Didn't know you could do that (the clippings), thanks a lot! WikiFouf (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- See my second opinion comments above. I've also clipped sources 3 and 6 for you to confirm, @WikiFouf. Good luck with the review! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Pencilsforall, did you mean to put this up for a second opinion? You didn't actually list it. You have to change "status" from "onreview" to "2ndopinion". -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: a little late, but chiming in nevertheless! Apologies, I changed the review status; looking back, it seems "Answering a second opinion" only applies to the original reviewer. On that front, @Pencilsforall: just checking in. If they don't reply soon, do you believe it's time for "Step 4a"? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Averageuntitleduser, that was my mistake actually, I didn't realize that the source check above was yours, since it wasn't signed. So what you did was correct, but I'm not sure what @Pencilsforall is expected to make of this source check, since you only appear to have confirmed two of the sources? -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: Ah, I clipped or linked the sources they couldn't access. Looking at them now, they do check out, or in the case of multiple citations, confirm part of the sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- hi All. Sorry for being slow. I'll take a look and finish up the review soon.Pencilsforall (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: Ah, I clipped or linked the sources they couldn't access. Looking at them now, they do check out, or in the case of multiple citations, confirm part of the sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Averageuntitleduser, that was my mistake actually, I didn't realize that the source check above was yours, since it wasn't signed. So what you did was correct, but I'm not sure what @Pencilsforall is expected to make of this source check, since you only appear to have confirmed two of the sources? -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: a little late, but chiming in nevertheless! Apologies, I changed the review status; looking back, it seems "Answering a second opinion" only applies to the original reviewer. On that front, @Pencilsforall: just checking in. If they don't reply soon, do you believe it's time for "Step 4a"? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
