Talk:Home Life Building/GA1

{{Archive top}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Home Life Building/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Home Life Building/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 21:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

{{tq|Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.}}

• {{tq|It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria}} -
• {{tq|It contains copyright infringements}} -
• {{tq|It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}).}} -
• {{tq|It is not stable due to edit warring on the page.}} -

• 251–257 Broadway in Lower Manhattan - perhaps the numbers could come later, the lede sentence can just say where it is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• {{Done}}
• The references in infobox,what do they cite? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• These are basically references for the heights, architects, materials, and construction date. I decided to cluster them here for simplicity. Of course, these are also cited in the body per WP:INFOBOXCITE. epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• The third and fourth bold seem overkill. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• {{Done}}
• clad with marble, and the Postal Telegraph Building is clad with - is there another word for clad? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• {{Done}}
• The Home Life Company bought 253 Broadway in 1947, and the two buildings were joined internally to form a single structure. - any idea when it began to be referred to as a single structure? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Immediately afterward, these became known as a single structure. epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Not much wrong, pretty nitpicky stuff.

• the neoclassical style.[7][11][4] - reforder Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• {{Done}}
• A couple redlinks - are they all notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• I think the red links for the architects are probably notable, though I haven't created these pages yet. epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• roof.[18][2][19][20][d - do we need four refs here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• {{Removed}}

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|}}
3. ::
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|}}
6. ::
7. It is broad in its coverage.
8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|}}
9. ::
10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|}}
12. ::
13. It is stable.
14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|}}
15. ::
16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
17. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|}}
18. ::
19. Overall:
20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|}}
21. ::

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• {{re|Lee Vilenski}} Thanks for the prompt review. I've resolved all these issues now. epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}