Talk:Axa Equitable Center/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 13 September 2021 (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, 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:
· · ·

Source 1 does not load for me.
Just as an aside, Hemingway Editor marks 24 of the 38 sentences in the Design section as hard to read. I'd agree with that, and recommend making the section more concise. Some measurements, for example, might be too detailed for the scope of the article.
- I've actually tried to use this before, but it makes very weird suggestions like substituting "Equitable" for "Complex". In fact, I was able to downgrade the difficulty for a lot of sentences by substituting a placeholder name instead of "Equitable". Nevertheless, I have trimmed some of the more minute details. Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with your reservations on Hemingway (I dont use it myself), just thought having a number would be useful (I probably should've used Grammarly for that). Trimming done. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 05:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph of "Site" section has many mentions of "East" making it hard to read.
- Reduced some of the usages of that word. Epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 05:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Galleria" section has the same but for the word "galleria"
- Reduced some of the usages of that word, too. Epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 05:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Impact section": "The artwork was received more positively" do you mean "... by other architecture critics/publications."? It feels like the thought is left unfinished here.
- Yes, that is what I mean. Thanks for bringing that up, I totally forgot about it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Design section really needs more images for how much text there is. While the text gives good information, it is too dense without additional images. Images from inside would be particularly useful, but an easy addition would be of the artwork mentioned (e.g. the large America Today mural).
- @A. C. Santacruz: Sadly, I can't get interior images myself, mostly because I do not have access to most of the interiors. I would be happy to upload any interior images should I come across any that are freely licensed. Also, the artwork may still be under copyright, unfortunately, as freedom of panorama in the US does not apply to artworks. For example, America Today is still under copyright until about 2025-2026. Epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's unfortunate :( Don't worry about images then Epicgenius. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 05:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On hold, some fixes needed.
After changes: Almost gtg, I'll just go and see if I can find typos before I promote. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 05:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]