Talk:Lever House/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: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 23:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Basic stuff and comments

• Move the short description to the top of the article.
• Also move the "use mdy dates" template below "about".
• You can also change "about" for the "for" template.
  • The only issue with that is I am combining two "for" templates, which is the only reason I'm using "about". Epicgenius (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Infobox, lead, and #Site all look good.
• "company which was" → "company that was"
• "an area which was" → "an area that was"
• "window panes which cannot open" → "window panes that cannot open"
• "window washers was hired" → "window washers were hired"
• "the third story was" → "the third story were"
• "during April 1951" → "in April 1957"
• Capitalize "Mayor" when listing a title/name.
• "designation. since" → "designation. Since"
• "one of very similar design" - reword?
• Remove the comma after "identical to the originals".
• "during late 2009" → "in late 2009"
• "without regard to existing architecture" → "without regard to the existing architecture"
• Check for citation ordering issues everywhere in the article.
• I wouldn't suggest listing PAPER in all caps. Change it to Paper.
• Mark references from The New York Times with "|url-access=limited".
• Mark references from The Real Deal New York with "|url-access=subscription".
• Wikilink David W. Dunlap, Aline B. Saarinen ("Louchheim"), Ada Louise Huxtable, Herbert Muschamp, Grace Glueck, Paul Goldberger, Christopher Gray, and Sam Sifton.

Progress

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@Some Dude From North Carolina: Thanks. I've done all of these. Epicgenius (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2021 (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.