Talk:One Worldwide Plaza/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Lightburst (talk · contribs) 21:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I will begin this review. Lightburst (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Review

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:

   The lead covers the information that is found in the article it is three paragraphs in length. The prose throughout is succinct and the words used are understandable by a general audience. I see conversion templates for measurements. I think it may be useful to have conversion templates for money but since the building was developed in the 1980s a conversion may not be very impressive. I have reviewed your work before and you are an impressive and thorough editor. Lightburst (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

   I appreciate it Lightburst. I should add the inflation templates by the end of the weekend. Epicgenius (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

   @Lightburst, I've added footnotes for the inflated figures to all pre-2000 monetary values. Although the US dollar has a low inflation rate, the value of the dollar has still declined by 80 percent compared to when the project was first proposed (e.g. $1 in 1976 would be worth $5 today). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Thanks. I am sure it is not a GA requirement but I appreciate conversions as a reader. I hope to continue the review today and tomorrow. It is a pleasure to read content which was created by such a prolific, expert Wikipedian. Lightburst (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

   The prose is easy to read and follows an order congruent with our manual of style. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

2. 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:

   The references are all RS by our standards and I do not find evidence that any redlined sources were used. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

   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):

   Reference 48 is what looks like a non-rs forum. Can we find a better source?

    Done I have replaced it with a better source, which actually shows that the fountain is called The Seasons. Epicgenius (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

   Citation 47 - the sentence proceeding it is not found in the source. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    Done The source says "His public commissions included the fountain sculptures at World Wide Plaza in Manhattan", but I've added another source specifically linking Simon to the fountain. Epicgenius (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   The article is written well, and there is no POV push or original research. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spot checking many of the references I find that they are interpreted without WP:CLOP and any discrepancies have been corrected by the nominator. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article covers all of the relevant information and it is comprehensive.

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

   The detail which has been presented is needed, it is a credit to the nominator: if only all of Wikipedia could have articles which are written so well... It is truly a pleasure to see an article written with such precision. Lightburst (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

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

   I do not find any evidence of bias.

5. Is it stable?

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

   The article has not been edited by anyone since April 2023 which is 3+ months ago. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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:

   The images are free with the exception of one: I believe that the image File:Worldwide-plaza-fountain-small.jpg may not be free FOP because it is 3d artwork. Lightburst (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    Done Good point; I've removed the infringing image. Epicgenius (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

   The images are relevant and there is also a commons link with additional images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   well done Epicgenius! Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 20 August 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.