Talk:BellTel Lofts/GA1

GA Review

Passed. 123Writer ^talk 01:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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: 1TWO3Writer (talk · contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of August 2023 backlog.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues I think.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead appropriate length and contains only info found in article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Citation style is consistent. No issues.
	2b. 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).	See below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Every paragraph has at least one citation, most have multiple.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	False positives are proper nouns. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	From a preliminary search on Google and Newspapers.com, nothing of note has happened since 2013 apart from the building of a taller (and ugly) residential skyscraper at 111 Willoughby Street (can't wait for the Epic GA article on that monstrosity!).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Short for an EpicGenius article. I don't really see anything that needs to be removed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Hard to be biased against a building, contains criticisms and praise by critics.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Last edit not mine or nominator's from over a month ago.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All own work from nominator.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All show the subject at different angles. Captions good.
	7. Overall assessment.

Spot-check

4, 11, 23, 30, 49, 55, 69, 76, 82, 93, 96

[11], [49], [55] clippings seems to have text cut off. I imagine the process is tedious, but I'd go through all the Newspaper.com clippings and check if all text is present for verifiability.
- I have fixed some clips and will look at the rest of these later. However, in my view, these clippings are convenience links, rather than absolutely necessary to verify the reference (someone could in theory go to a library and look at these articles in person). Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[69] there doesn't seem to be any mention of 7 MetroTech in the article or about it being unrelated, although I can't read so just double check.
- It is mentioned, but "Seven" is spelled out. The source says Other projects named "Metrotech" have come along independent of Forest City: Five Metrotech Center is the name given to a new library for the university. Six Metrotech Center is a New York Telephone Company learning center. Seven Metrotech Center is another phone company building. The way I read it, 5, 6, and 7 MetroTech were not related to the broader MetroTech project (which is the Forest City project). Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Sorry about that. 123Writer ^talk 01:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, I guess you should fix it only if a whole sentence is missing, but cleaner clippings is always nice! 123Writer ^talk 01:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for the review @1TWO3Writer. I've responded to your above comments and will look at the clippings soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.