 | Holden Block (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 12 October 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | Holden Block has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 10, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Holden Block appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 May 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination edit
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
( )
Holden Block
- ... that the Holden Block (pictured) is the best-preserved 1870s commercial block in Chicago's Near West Side? Source: "The Holden Block is the best-surviving commercial block ... built in the 1870s on Chicago’s Near West Side"([1] p. 22)
- ALT1:... that the Holden Block (pictured) was tied for the tenth-oldest Chicago Landmark in 2017? Source: [2]
- Reviewed: La Dama Enmascarada and Irma González
Created by John M Wolfson (talk). Self-nominated at 23:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC).
New enough, long enough, and neutrally written. The hooks are mentioned in the article, are cited inline, and are interesting to a broad audience. I prefer ALT0 but both work. QPQ is completed and no copyvio complaints. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
GA Review edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Holden Block/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 23:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
There are some copy tweaks, but I am worried that 12 of the 16 inline citations are from the landmark report. Is there additional sourcing you can add to beef this up? 7-day hold to John M Wolfson. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Copy changes edit
- It is one of the few remaining examples of Italianate-designed commercial blocks in Chicago, and is the best preserved of such blocks in the Near West Side. One of several extraneous commas that can be removed. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences (CinS)
- It was significantly damaged by a gas explosion and fire in 1894, but rebuilt while preserving the original facade. Same
- It is unknown whether the Holden Block itself served as a hotel during this time, but it was vacant by the time of a fire in 1954. I wish there was more information. I did my own Newspapers.com digging and found references to a Reliable Sales Company at 1027 W. Madison in 1949 and a tavern closed and put up for auction in 1953.
- SCC restored the property, and obtained a tax incentive from the Chicago City Council for the restoration at the time of the landmark declaration. Another comma that can be removed.
- SCC's restoration, completed in 2012, was positively received, and regarded as "turning back the clock" on the structure that had been "in sorry shape". The last comma (after "received") isn't needed.
- go up 1031 missing a "to"
- It has, however, since gentrified and is regarded as trendy. Source?
- I'd also like to see a source for the mass transit, though in some cases that's kind of obvious.
Sourcing and spot checks edit
I have a major concern here, and that is that this article is very, very reliant on the landmark report. 12 of its 16 inline citations. They all check out, but is there any other coverage of this building to provide sufficient coverage?
Images edit
There is one CC-BY-SA image. Add alt text.
- @Sammi Brie: I believe I have addressed your concerns except for the "trendy neighborhood" source, which I'll look for in the coming days. (If I have missed any copyediting concerns, please do make such corrections yourself if they are minor.) As for your sourcing comments, I've tried to add sources (including your tavern source) and have gotten to only 12/19 inline cites from the Report. My ultimate goal with this article is to write a sub-10kB Featured Article; given the subject matter's relative "obscurity", this seems like the perfect article to do so, even if it leaves the article vulnerable to some source domination as you describe. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, I ran IABot simply because it finally came back online and I typically recommend archival at GAN. (I have a lot of my own pages that need it after it was out of service for 2.5 months.) Comparing the image on Commons to the one in the historical report is really night and day. I think you've beefed it up a little bit, and it's not like the landmark report is a bad source or anything, so I'm going to approve. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.