Talk:McAllister Tower Apartments/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Article is well written and complies to WP:MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   All references appear to be in order.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article conforms to WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article appears stable.

6. 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):

   All images conform to requirements and are properly captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

General comments

• There are issues in the lead. Whatever is mentioned in the lead must come from one of the sections. McAllister Tower and McAllister Tower Apartments are not referred to in any of the sections.
• The lead does not give a good summary of the article. It does not mention anything about how the building was initially built as and used as a church (although it does provide that, but in name only). The lead needs further expansion. See WP:LEAD for more.
• There are low level grammar issues in the prose, especially punctuation. Very long sentences could be helped by the inclusion of commas.
• As the captions have more than one sentence, they should all end with proper punctuation.

I will allow up to seven days for these issues to be resolved.

GAN Fixes: I have expanded the lead somewhat, bringing more of the article's contents into the opening summary. I have taken a close look at low-level grammar problems, but such concerns were never my strength as a writer—I believe the issue is fixed, but am not certain. Captions are full sentences now, with full stops. Also, I have pulled all references from the lead section as all the facts are supported in the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• The lead is now acceptable, but there are still problems with it. In particular, this sentence: ""The Tower" is sited one block from the administrative and scholastic center of Hastings College of the Law, one of few urban law schools with housing devoted exclusively to its students." Ensure that the main points of this sentence are in one of the sections below.

1. The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (GA criteria)
2. There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria)

• Is "Skyroom" the official name of the cocktail lounge? It needs to be in quotes on first use as it is not a real word.
• I am a bit concerned about the bold names appearing throughout the lead. Generally, this should be in the very first sentence, and there should not be any more bold type after that. Can you please see if you can re-write the lead to incorporate this?
• Wikilinks should only be made on the first mention, and unless the article is very long, they should not be repeated. Please remove any repeated wikilinks.

Thanks for all your hard work in making this a better article. Do let me know when you have completed these changes for another assessment. -- S Masters (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have adjusted the lead to reflect only article contents; I have found that the hotel's view lounge was named the "Sky Room" (but I note that authors Therese Poletti and Michael Crowe use 'skyroom' as a word); I have eliminated all but the initial bolding, I have trimmed wikilinks back to just one instance each in the readable prose area, and I have added some bits and pieces that came up while I was looking at sources. One new source is a blog entry by the author Poletti, and since she is a published expert on the subject, I feel that her blog qualifies as a reliable source. Finally, I tweaked the reference section for page numbers. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your hard work, and importantly, for making this article better. With all issues resolved, I am satisfied that this article meets all the criteria for a Good Article. -- S Masters (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

All because of your eagle editing eye! Thanks for your excellent involvement. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)