Talk:O Street Market/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

The original GA nomination was given a highly cursory review by an inexperienced reviewer who did not review to the GA criteria, and missed a number of issues, all of which should have prevented approval until they were fixed.

This will be a complete GA review, with the hope that the article will retain its GA listing because it has, through further edits, met the criteria. I look forward to working with the original nominator, APK, on improving the article and making it worthy of the listing it was prematurely given.

I've run out of time to do a complete assessment now, so I'll be starting by posting comments on two of the History subsections. I expect to add a template showing where the article stands with regard to the six GA criteria, and to continue with the specific comments on the article sections. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Specific comments

History section

• 19th century:

• Many vendors refused to leave the market and were killed during the demolition. With the help of businessmen, some of these vendors started the Northern Liberty Market Company (NLMC): if they were killed, they can't have then started the NLMC. Also, were all of the vendors who refused to leave the market killed, or did some survive?
• It might be helpful to give a bit more information on the location of the "commercial district on 7th Street", so 5th and K Streets being "too far" has more context.
• Butcher Michael Hoover owned Square 422 in the early 1800s, selling it to printer Andrew Rothwell about 1845. Rothwell made many improvements to the property, adding gardens which became popularly known as Rothwell's Gardens. Please recast in the past tense; no "selling" or "adding".

 Done except the second point. The nomination form doesn't mention the specific area of 7th Street that would have been considered the heart of the commercial district. It was south of Massachusetts Avenue (approximately between Pennsylvania Avenue and H Street), but that would be considered OR. APK whisper in my ear 01:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• 20th century:

• Per WP:LAYIM, the initial image should not be at the left here; please put it to the right.
• The opening sentence would be clearer if it mentioned the market directly: "The area surrounding the O Street Market, known as Shaw,"
• The second sentence should be recast to avoid using "population" twice
• The ending sentences of the first and fourth paragraphs are effectively non-sequiturs: they mention historical designations right after talking about recent problems at the market. Perhaps the designations should be taken out of sequence and made their own paragraph.
• It isn't clear when the market actually closed after the 1968 riots. Widespread declines are frequently not immediate, so a few more facts would be welcome.
• You might want to move the 1968 riots and aftermath into the next paragraph after the first sentence, so they are mentioned chronologically.
• I'm puzzled by the June 1974 contract to renovate the O Street Market, followed in 1977 or 1978 by a rather larger loan to renovate the market building and an extra loan in 1979 to finish the job. Usually renovations last more than three or four years. Can this be touched on in the text?
• Adkins planned to turn the street into a pedestrian mall, parking lot, and landscaped area. Did he or didn't he? This is history, so what actually happened is what we need to know here.
• Third paragraph, final sentence: the celebratory music strikes me as unnecessary detail.
• Fourth paragraph, first sentence: if a "two-decade crime wave" is being mentioned, there needs to be some indication of when during the twenty years this shooting happened.

 In progress Done with points 1-4, 6, and 9-10. I need to ask @Tim1965: if he can look over the sources he used since I don't have access to them. Regarding when the market closed, the source only says "The 1968 riots caused the market to close". I would assume it was immediate since large portions of Shaw's 7th Street corridor were torched or looted. APK whisper in my ear 01:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I clarified when the market closed in 1968, and added two cites to support it. A little copyediting was done to that sentence and the next one or two. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what is puzzling about the 1977-1979 renovation. Can you elaborate? - Tim1965 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As for Adkins' intent to close 8th Street and create a pedestrian mall, parking lot, and landscaped area: The final sentence in the third paragraph of the section "21st century" shows that 8th Street Wawas closed. The second sentence in first paragraph of the section "21st century" shows that the street was turned into a plaza. We could replicate both cites at the end of the sentence, and edit the sentence to indicate Adkins did build the three items. Would that meet the criteria? Neither The Washington Post nor The Evening Star indicated whether parking was added. One assumes so: This is the Federal City, after all. This is federal land. Both the National Capital Planning Commission and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts have jurisdiction over the look of the area (buildings, streetscape, lighting, etc.), and no changes (additions or cutbacks) can be made without their approval. I would argue that as there was nothing reported about any changes, that this is negative evidence that the project went through as planned. - Tim1965 (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on sections:

• An article with just History and Design sections is a bit odd. I think there needs to be a top-level section after the History section reflecting the present status of the building (perhaps incorporating the final two paragraphs under 21st century, though recast a bit given that the O Street Market part of the building would be highlighted more).

 In progress Do you mean a section titled "Current status" or something like that? I'm not sure what to call that section. Sorry. APK whisper in my ear 01:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

More to come. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the article is generally good enough to be an good article. 333-blue 11:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no "generally good enough" when reviewing to the GA criteria. Either it meets all of the various criteria or it doesn't, and in this case it doesn't, yet. You had your say in your own review; no need to rehash your opinions here. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look over the article. I just started a new job and things are very hectic for me right now. I'll work on the article in the next day or two when I have time. Thanks for your patience. APK whisper in my ear 18:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• 21st century:

• This section might be divided into more than one: Rehabilitation plans and roof collapse, Expanded redevelopment plans, etc. As noted before, a new top-level section should be split off for the present day.

See previous section. APK whisper in my ear 02:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• First paragraph: most of the sentences should be recast.

• First sentence: "local firm" should not need to be mentioned more than once
• Second sentence: dividing 40-foot-wide does not work well
• Third sentence: you might want to mention the fact that the plaza was shown on the original design of the city to explain the review board's refusal; if not, then the third and fourth sentences should be combined
• Final sentence: please delete this

• Second paragraph: I doubt anyone "continuously" called for the project to resume. How about "regularly"; does that fit the source's information?
• Third paragraph, penultimate sentence: although the facade of O Street Market was ultimately incorporated into the new Giant Food, the cited source says nothing about this. Please cite a source that does.
• Fourth paragraph: the first two sentences should be combined to avoid repetition. The third and fourth would do better to delete "angrily" and "quietly"; the first is redundant and the second seems an inappropriate characterization.
• Fifth paragraph: in the second sentence, "double the size": is that supported, or might it be careless reporting on the part of the source? If the store had been 40,000 sq ft before, then a final size of 72,000 sq ft is not double.
• Sixth paragraph: "attended by local politicians and business leaders" is unnecessary detail and should be deleted. The later "added additional delays" is repetitive; also, if the HUD did add to the delays, can you quantify? Would the redevelopment have been able to go ahead without that financing? These are post-groundbreaking delays, yes?
• Seventh paragraph: but is this really true? The O Street Market building now makes up a fraction of the space of the Giant Food that is on the same site, which encompasses the Market's external walls as either its own external walls or some of its internal walls. It isn't a public market any more, but is entirely subsumed by a supermarket. Are these the surviving public market buildings, perhaps? Or are the other two still used as public markets?

 Done APK whisper in my ear 02:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Design:

• I think this needs a name change, since this is the Original design, with no mention of the current Giant Food design. (There is some information about the current design available.)
• This writing here it pretty dense. If there's a way to simplify, even if it omits a specific or two, that might be helpful.
• There's no mention of the market's actual interior size, which I've seen variously mentioned as 12,000 and 12,500 square feet, or indeed anything about the interior or original roof designs. (One source mentions a 3,500 square foot basement. The section here doesn't.)
• If you do decide (and have the sourcing) to include the surviving elements in the new Giant Food building, possibly as a new paragraph, then you could retain the original section title.

 In progress I changed the title to "Original design" in order to keep focus on the historical portion of the building. (one of the main reasons it was listed on the NRHP) IMHO, I'm not sure details of the new grocery store building are very important. I added a note about the different square footage and I found a source saying the basement was 4,500 sq ft. I don't see one mentioning the 3,500 figure. Do you remember where you saw that? What aspects of the design section needs trimming? APK whisper in my ear 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That should finish my comments. Please let me know if you have any questions, and keep me informed if you expect to take longer than a week to get started. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Current status

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I'm still working my way through the article, so these may change as I continue the review, and as edits are made by nominator. The individual criteria should be reflected in the ongoing review above.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   Still some "clear and concise" issues, and some grammar and punctuation fixes Fixes have been made

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead seems fine, but some words to watch and a layout issue and issues addressed

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   There's at least one place doesn't reflect its sourcing and may need to be deleted fixed

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Still need to check these Spot-checks find no such issues; a few wording changes have been made

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   I think a section on the current state of the market is needed, with more focus on the article's market, rather than continuing the History section through present day and into the future On further reflection, I think the article is broad enough, and meets the GA criteria in this regard

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   Some unnecessary details (will be mentioned in detailed review) Unnecessary details have been removed

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   A few words to watch could be influencing some aspects; should easily be fixed fixed

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Final comments

I apologize for forgetting about this reassessment, which should have been closed months ago after the initial work was done in response to the original (and extensive) comments. I have done some minor edits today—a bit of formatting, a couple of places where the wording was reminiscent of that in the source or not quite supported by the source, and some slight prose smoothing and a corrected typo. All of the issues previously noted have been addressed, and I'm happy to close this: the article will continue to be listed due to the work done on it during this reassessment. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)