Talk:Stockton B. Colt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Very meticulously written, good work!.

HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stockton B. Colt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. Sorry for the long wait! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, slipped off my radar - returning to this review tomorrow. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Rublamb:, before I get to the prose review, it would be good to get your thoughts on the comments below in case the prose changes substantially. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for working on this GA nomination. With your advice, I added the inflation template (my new favorite template) and updated the photo credit in WikiCommons I found no image of Colt available online--even his Columbia yearbook and professional journal obituaries lack an image. As to the text, it is normal in architectural bios to provide significant coverage of buildings, whether in a projects section or as part of the career section. Some are longer texts, some are just lists. It depends. When I went back to check examples of GA for architecture, I also learned that the Architecture WP has their own review process. With that in mind, should I withdraw this nomination and go through the WP? I have not had much luck getting them to reply to specific questions in the past, but don't want to jump their process by submitting this article straight to GA. Rublamb (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  From what I can see, their peer review process is more suited for articles being prepared for FA nomination, not GA. However, if you feel more comfortable having the article reviewed by architecture enthusiasts such as those at the WP, let me know and I can close the GA nomination. I don't know what they'd prefer for sure, though, so it's up to you!

  The template and image fixes look good. As to the buildings, I'm fine with some coverage, but the current amount of coverage is excessive. Just keep the focus on Colt's choices and decisions in design, and not on general description of the buildings or who requisitioned them. Again, happy to provide more specific feedback if you prefer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Rublamb: thoughts on the above? —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, forgot to respond. Based on other biographical articles I have written and edited, I do understand your point of view. However, I went back and reviewed the architect temple and a couple of FA architect bios. This article appears to follow the standard format (having both career and projects sections) and detailed descriptions of projects. As a result, I am reluctant to cut the text until we either having feedback from a WP review or at least another reviewer. If I am wrong, I don't mind cutting. I just prefer to have a second opinion first. I have confirmed that he Architecture WP does review articles for GA status. I was going to post this article there to see if we could get a quick response, but someone over-edited their page, removing the place to post articles for review. I plan of trying to restore that today. If you are willing to leave this review open a few more days to see if I can get a response, that would be great. But I also understand if you feel like it is best to close the GA review for now. I just hate to lose the work you have already put into this review. Again, I appreciate your willingness to even be a GA reviewer. Rublamb (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Happy to leave the review open - let's give it to the end of the month, at least, and then we can reconvene to discuss. If we can find a good third opinion in that time, it'll be helpful! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Rublamb - does it look like anyone else would be able to help us discuss this? If not, we can either continue with the review as best we can, or close it to give you the chance to try again with a fresh GA reviewer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  The person in WP:Architecture that I contacted is too busy to look at it now, and I received no response at all on the group page. I appreciate the effort you put into this review, but maybe it is best for we to wait until someone from the WP can advise me. Thanks! Rublamb (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Ok, I'll close it out - thanks for the article in any case, it's an interesting read! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues, pass.
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.	Pass, 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).	Suggest you use Template:Inflation rather than a separate citation for an inflation-adjusted number. Other than that, no issues - some older local newspapers but nothing to suggest they're not reliable, especially for the kind of facts cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None detected, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check, some passages showed up as copyvio, but all are appropriate quotations the bot didn't recognize. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I will address this in conjunction with 3b below.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article focuses too much on some of Colt's buildings and not enough on Colt himself. I suggest removing some or all of the detail on the McCready House, the Barclay Building, the police station, the Emmett Building, and the Carriage House. In general, keep the focus on Colt's architectural challenges, choices or innovations, not general description of the buildings or their owners. I can make more specific suggestions for cuts if you would like, but am happy to leave it up to your discretion. The current Projects section should be combined with Career and reduced in length considerably. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues with stability, pass.
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.	File:Second Precinct Police Station New York City 1910.jpg says the photo was taken by Colt himself. Is that accurate, or did he just design the building? Same with File:Courtyard of Second Precinct Police Station New York City 1910.jpg?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Are there no suitable images of Colt himself available anywhere?
	7. Overall assessment.

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.