Talk:901 New York Avenue

901 New York Avenue has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 22, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
July 6, 2012	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Skyscrapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skyscrapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to skyscrapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkyscrapersWikipedia:WikiProject SkyscrapersTemplate:WikiProject SkyscrapersSkyscraper articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: District of Columbia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as Low-importance).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:901 New York Avenue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) 13:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Points

I'm seeing quite a lot of offline references. If possible, could these be linked to online?
In the "Architecture and design" section, reference 29 needs fixing. Please remove the "]" after "April 1, 2005.]".

Thanks! ⇒T A P 17:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

both done. I managed to find the articles that I could♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More

"was cited by Esquire magazine" — add the prefix "the " before Esquire.

⇒T A P 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, cited by Esquire magazine is correct I think "the Esquire magazine" would be incorrect,♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the being reviewed against WP:WIAGA or against personal preferences? The requirement for less offline references is certainly not a requirement of GA. Pyrotec (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references with the URLs allows the reader to look at the references. It may not be required, but is nicer where applicable. This is in addition to the criteria. ⇒T A P 21:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles can be accessed online, then its a good idea to link them, but as Pyrotec says, not compulsory. Vast majority of sources for Vlastimil Koubek are not found online.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 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):
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:

Suggestions

Article is full of duplication. The statistics (height, volume, etc.) are needlessly repeated cruft. The restaurant section has much to say about Cajun cuisine, and precious little about architecture. It should be a separate section. This needs sharp-penciled editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:901 New York Avenue/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I believe the last review was inadequately carried out, so I'm re-reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, fire away.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the delay. Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is substantially the same as reviewed at /GA1, however on 24th June 2012 one editor moved material from the Architecture and design section into a new section Ground floor and restaurant tenant; and also removed material from the Lead, which was then restored by the Nominator ([1] see here). I will regard this article as "stable". Pyrotec (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I will review this from the first section of the article to the end of the review and then do the Lead last.

History of the site -

Generally OK.
Y Pyrotec (talk) - The first paragraph; Originally, Victorian-style townhomes occupied the triangular area bounded by K Street NW, New York Avenue NW, and 10th Street NW. The Mount Vernon Square neighborhood was originally a vibrant business district with sizeable Victorian homes, but the area went into a steep decline in the 1930s.[2] appears rather disjointed, as does the second. The site is clearly triangular, with New York Avenue NW forming one side and K Street NW and 10th Street NW forming the other two. It's not clear whether this triangle is in Mount Vernon Square or Mount Vernon Square neighborhood.

Construction -

Generally OK.
However, there is inconsistent use of units of area. In the second paragraph of this section, the site is described as 1.22-acre (0.49 ha) and in the final paragraph of the previous section it is described as 51,000-square-foot (4,700 m2). Possibly 1.22-acre and 51,000-square-foot are the areas quoted in the sources, but the derived units could be made consistent.

its OK I think, site area is usually in hectares or square km and interior size usually in sq ft/metres.

Architecture and design & Ground floor and restaurant tenant -

Both sections are OK.

WP:Lead -

This is intended to both introduce that topic and summarise the points (with the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic). More of than half the lead is concerned with height, materials and design. Eleven storeys does seem to be a consistent theme through history and construction, so that is consistent.
I would like to consider what is missing and whether it is important: -

There is no consideration of time frame, e.g. site had previous uses but was cleared in late 1970s, was a parking lot up to 2002, present building opened 2005.
Office accommodation proposed in the late 1980s, but several delays along the way, e.g. not zoned for office/retail use, "residential linkage" needed to be addressed, several attempts to consider site for hotel use.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Its now GA-class.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Following improvements to the Lead, I'm happy to confirm GA status.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Well illustrated.

B. Focused:
Well illustrated.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

A good article that's also a Good Article. Pyrotec (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 901 New York Avenue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120502182339/http://www.clarkconstruction.com/releases/entry/2291/ to http://www.clarkconstruction.com/releases/entry/2291/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]