Talk:108 St Georges Terrace/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

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

   In the Pre-1978 section, remove "iconic", from the section and any part of the article, since it is a peacock term, per here. In the After completion: 1988 to present section, no need repetition of "Alan Bond", his full name should be mentioned once. Same section, "The collapse of Bond Corporation saw the removal of the Bond logos from the tower, and the tower was exclusively called the R&I Tower" ---> "The collapse of Bond Corporation saw the removal of the Bond logos from the tower, and was exclusively called the R&I Tower", too much repetition of "tower" in the sentence.

   Done --timsdad ^(talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

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

   Suggestions: "Bond Corporation and construction: 1978 to 1988" ---> "Bond Corporation and construction: 1978-1988" and "After completion: 1988 to present" ---> "After completion: 1988-present", normally title headers are usually set up that way. In the After completion: 1988 to present section, italicize "Irises", per here.

   Done --timsdad ^(talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

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

   Reference 1, "The West Australian" should be italicized, since its a newspaper, also to keep a consistency with how the other references are formatted.

   Done --timsdad ^(talk) 22:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 6 cover all this ---> "However, the construction of the modern office tower at the site's north-eastern corner required demolition of Terrace Arcade, the eastern accommodation wing and the hotel's renowned dining room. The rationale given for the works required was that extensive renovations to the Palace Hotel in 1915 and the 1930s had weakened its structure significantly, as well as problems controlling white ants in the structure"? Is there a source for this ---> "The collapse of Bond Corporation saw the removal of the Bond logos from the tower, and the tower was exclusively called the R&I Tower until 1994 when the bank changed its name to BankWest. The name of the tower and the accompanying signage was changed to match the new corporate identity of its owner and head tenant, thus becoming the "BankWest Tower"?

   Reference 6 does cover all of that (it's a handy article).

   I don't have a reference for the latter on hand. I'll go in to the state library and try to find one in the newspaper archives in the next few days. - Mark 02:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

   I've added in some references to archival photographs held by the State Library which show the signage on the building at different points in time. Are these sufficient as references for the assertions made? I'm not sure I'll be able to even find newspaper articles about the changing of building signs. Perhaps more specifically, is it original research to look at a photo and say whether something is present in it? - Mark 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

   Check.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to both timsdad and Mark for getting the stuff I left at the talkpage, cause I have gone off and passed the article to GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)