Talk:The St. James/GA1

GA Review

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

commencing review

I will undertake this review. The article appears to be neutral, stable, well-referenced, and its images are in order. It is in very good shape and needs little done to qualify at GA I think.

Specific points:

• "...to become a magnet for vandals and the homeless" Unless I misread, the cited article does not say this (though the earlier part of the sentence is substantiated).
  • That part of the article is referenced by the other two references, particularly number 7. (I've also altered the sentence feeling it was to similar to the orignal soucre.) Medvedenko (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• "The plan was controversial as preservationists wanted the buildings preserved". Can an editor come up with a re-write that doesn't use the same word twice in the sentence?
  • This was difficult, but I managed to figure out an alternative. Medvedenko (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• "found financing by going into a partnership with real estate firm Boston Financial to finance its planned residential tower" - ditto, re financing/finance.
  • Fixed. Medvedenko (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• "Construction was completed later that month with finishing touches completed later in the year" - ditto re "completed"
  • Fixed. Medvedenko (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I would suggest that the long-ish quote from Cotton in the last para might work as a blockquote, but see what you think.
  • While it is a long quote I believe it is to much part of the overall sentence to seperate it graphicly. Medvedenko (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing else needs resolving for GA status. If any information is available about rents or prices, that might be good, though i don't mean 'how much is a unit there right now?' kind of info. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've addresed your concerns, but I'm unable to look for the building's price range at the moment and will have to look later. Thank you for the review. Medvedenko (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)