Talk:901 New York Avenue/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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]