Talk:Albert Kahn (architect)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) 19:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I am starting this review now and will record some comments below shortly. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "architect lay-out arranged factories" (in both the lead section and in the body) doesn't seem likely to be understood by a broad audience, per WP:TECHNICAL.

•  Done

• The same could be said for "conglomerate production industry manufacturer".
•  Done

• This phrase is also confusing, but it looks like a simple typo: "where developed production techniques in the assembly line manufactured the Ford Model T".
•  Done

Everything else that follows in the bulleted list below are comments that I think can improve this article, but I don't think are required for GAN. Overall, the article is well written.

• "some 20%" would sound more encyclopedic if it was "about 20%" like it says in the body.
•  Done

• "In addition," in the lead isn't necessary.
•  Done

• Is "on Soviet industrial construction" in the lead necessary?
•  Done

• "Kahn immigrated as a child with his family to Detroit, Michigan, in 1881, when he was 12" would be easier to read as "At age twelve in 1881, Kahn immigrated with his family to Detroit, Michigan"
•  Done

• This semicolon should probably be a comma: "engineer; and"
•  Done

• MOS:YEAR says "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation that replaces the comma". I see a bunch of years that are not followed by commas or other punctuation.
•  Done

• Comma doesn't seem necessary: "Fellowship, to study"
•  Done

• I feel like Kahn's first name comes up too often. It's only necessary to use it sparingly in a biography article.
•  Done

• "on William L. Clements Library" is missing "the", I think
•  Done

• "post the bankruptcy" sounds like it should be "following the bankruptcy"
•  Done

• In the bulleted list, I see some state/province names abbreviated, but not all. Either abbreviate all or none to be consistent.
•  Done

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The first sentence of the "Personal life" section seems out of place and should be moved to the Biography section. That leaves two short sections that don't seem to warrant this section at all, per MOS:OVERSECTION, which says "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." So that section should either be built out more or all the content should be moved to the biography.

•  Done

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Looks good.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The claims "the world's first airport hotel", "the year's most beautiful commercial building", and "second largest office building in the world" are not supported by the next following reference (ref 10). Even if it did support them, I believe each of these claims ought to have their own individual citation given the significance and WP:LIKELY-to-be-challenged nature of each.

•  Done

• Citation 3: the book says 19%, so it doesn't seem right to me to increase that number to 20% by adding "about" when you have an exact number.
•  Done

• Citation 13 should be moved to the 4,000 figure in the way that citation 3 is at the 521 figure, since those two sources back up those two figures, respectively.
•  Done

• Why "as of 2006" when citation 17 was published in 2020?
•  Done

• Lastly, though it isn't necessary to pass GA, I recommend improving the article by making the citation style and format consistent throughout the article.
•  Done

1. C. It contains no original research:

   Everything appears to be drawn from secondary sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Not that I can find.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   An architect this prolific and with this level of name recognition must have some notable influence and recognition in the field, but I don't see anything about that in the "Legacy section" and there is no "Critical reception" section either. Just a few lines about this is all that is necessary, I think, to cover the main aspects and pass GA standard here.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Looks fine.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Looks fine.

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Looks fine.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All satisfactory: a mix of fair use, rights released by copyright holders, and public domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Looks fine. Almost too many images for the length of the article, but for one about a prolific architect, I think it's expected to be loaded with images of his buildings.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the issues I raised above can be addressed, I will be happy to pass this nomination. I just may not be super responsive until November. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: All issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your changes look good! I edited the article myself a couple times just now to tweak some unclear wording. Please check my work to make sure I didn't accidentally make anything inaccurate. The only thing left in the way of this nomination is my comment under criterion 2a, above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Dugan Murphy: All issues under criterion 2a have been addressed. Can you take another look at what I added in the Death and Legacy section. Will that work to cover Legacy and "Critical reception"? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Great addition. That looks sufficient for GA standards. Congratulations! Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)