Talk:United States National Bank Building/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Carbrera in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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 |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Infobox
edit- Looks great!
Lead
edit- "Designed by noted Portland architect..." --> How about "Designed by famed Portland architect..."?
- Sure!
Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure!
History
editParagraph 1
edit- "including the Ainsworth National Bank (in 1902), the Wells Fargo Bank (in 1905), and the Lumbermen's National Bank (in 1917)." --> Should you provide wikilinks to the following banks?
- There aren't links to the Ainsworth and Lumbermen's banks, but I pipelinked "Wells Fargo Bank" to Wells Fargo. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Paragraph 2/3/4
edit- Nada! And very well–worded; good work!
Paragraph 5
edit- Please link "The Oregonian" to its respective article
- Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would add "The" before "U.S. National Bank of Oregon was honored by the Portland Historical Landmarks Commission in that year for its longstanding commitment to maintaining the building in nearly original condition.[29]"
- Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Description
editExterior
edit- "There are three entrance doorways in the three central bays, although originally there was only one." --> No source.
- @SJ Morg: Do you know if a specific source might help here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- That information comes solely from photographs and drawings, and I was unable to find a text source to cite for it. When I was writing the article, I was surprised to find that the lengthy and seemingly thorough NRHP nomination document does not even mention the two secondary doorways that flank the central doorway of the eastern façade. I read it again just now, and conclude that someone reading it could well even infer that there was still only one doorway in the central section of that façade at the time of nomination (1985), and yet the file of photographs and drawings that was submitted with the nomination clearly shows that those two secondary entrances were already present at that time. That file may be downloaded from the link in the infobox. Illustration no. 4 (of 30) is an early architect's drawing that shows the absence of doorways flanking the main entrance doorway in the original design, while illustration no. 8 shows the eastern façade with all three doorways (also shown in this 2012 photo by you) – and illustration 10 is a close-up of one of the two secondary doorways (which have revolving doors). The original absence of those two doorways is also fairly apparent in the circa 1920 photo used in the article (there are large flower planters that would block the path to them), but is shown more clearly in that drawing that's marked as "photo 4 of 30" in the nomination file. I don't know whether this is acceptable material for a citation or not. For the same reason, I have no idea when those two doorways were added; I'd like to know, as it was a modification that is worthy of brief mention in the article, but I have no info. on it. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. Please do not simply delete the sentence, in order to expedite a GA-pass, without at least discussing it. – SJ Morg (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks for responding. I will let User:Carbrera review and reply. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SJ Morg: @Another Believer: Oh no, I wouldn't delete the sentence, but we need to verify the claim that there was originally only one central bay. Carbrera (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SJ Morg and Carbrera: Is the NRHP nomination form sufficient as a source, then? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SJ Morg: @Another Believer: Yes that form is sufficient enough as a source. Since that was the last unresolved issue, I will be passing it now. Thank you both for your cooperation throughout! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC).
- @SJ Morg and Carbrera: Is the NRHP nomination form sufficient as a source, then? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SJ Morg: @Another Believer: Oh no, I wouldn't delete the sentence, but we need to verify the claim that there was originally only one central bay. Carbrera (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks for responding. I will let User:Carbrera review and reply. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. Please do not simply delete the sentence, in order to expedite a GA-pass, without at least discussing it. – SJ Morg (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- That information comes solely from photographs and drawings, and I was unable to find a text source to cite for it. When I was writing the article, I was surprised to find that the lengthy and seemingly thorough NRHP nomination document does not even mention the two secondary doorways that flank the central doorway of the eastern façade. I read it again just now, and conclude that someone reading it could well even infer that there was still only one doorway in the central section of that façade at the time of nomination (1985), and yet the file of photographs and drawings that was submitted with the nomination clearly shows that those two secondary entrances were already present at that time. That file may be downloaded from the link in the infobox. Illustration no. 4 (of 30) is an early architect's drawing that shows the absence of doorways flanking the main entrance doorway in the original design, while illustration no. 8 shows the eastern façade with all three doorways (also shown in this 2012 photo by you) – and illustration 10 is a close-up of one of the two secondary doorways (which have revolving doors). The original absence of those two doorways is also fairly apparent in the circa 1920 photo used in the article (there are large flower planters that would block the path to them), but is shown more clearly in that drawing that's marked as "photo 4 of 30" in the nomination file. I don't know whether this is acceptable material for a citation or not. For the same reason, I have no idea when those two doorways were added; I'd like to know, as it was a modification that is worthy of brief mention in the article, but I have no info. on it. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SJ Morg: Do you know if a specific source might help here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- There's a random ")" in here after "The bronze relief panels were cast in 1931, replacing the 1917 door panels[19] which had used replicas of early Greek, Roman and U.S. coins as a design motif.[32]"
Removed ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
_-_01.JPG){kind=link}
Interior
edit- "The ground floor holds the main banking room, still the main Portland branch of U.S. Bank, a grand room measuring 100 by 40 feet (30 m × 12 m) with 30-foot (9 m) ceilings.[19]" --> "The ground floor holds the main banking room (the Portland branch of U.S. Bank), and a grand room measuring 100 by 40 feet (30 m × 12 m) with 30-foot (9 m) ceilings.[19]"
- Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Immediate surroundings
edit- I would prefer the following: "That building's Italianate style contrasts sharply with the U.S. National Bank Building's classical design.[35]" --> "The aforementioned building's Italianate style contrasts sharply with the U.S. National Bank Building's classical design.[35]"
- Done ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's all here folks! :)
End of GA Review:
editAnother great article about Portland! It's great seeing your passion come alive here! On hold for seven days to allow for changes! Thanks and good luck! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC).
- Thanks so much for your time and assistance. I am not the primary author of this article, but I am sure he will see your compliment here, as I've pinged him to see if he is able to provide the source you requested above. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliment, Carbrera, and for taking time to do the GAN review. I responded above to that one question about a source, and I think I'll let Another Believer and you discuss and decide how to handle it. – SJ Morg (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2016 (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.