Talk:Broadway Hollywood Building/GA1

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.

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

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 22:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks stable, I'll review shortly. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well-written?

The lead could use some paragraphs per WP:LEAD.

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lead starts off almost every sentence with "The building", this needs to be changed.

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest changing "as a 10-story building" to "as a ten-story building" and "as a 9-story building" to "as a nine-story building" per WP:NUMERAL.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the annex as 8 storeys" - WP:NUMERAL.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Hollywood Boulevard (between La Brea Avenue and Gower Street, expanded to Sycamore Avenue on August 15, 2007) & Vine Street (between Sunset Boulevard and Yucca Street)—which was designated July 5, 1978" - I suggest re-writing this as all the "()()()()" doesn't flow.

I have simplified this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"$2 million (US$31 million in 2014 dollars)" - This wording doesn't flow. I suggest changing it to "$31 million (today's equivalent of $2 million in 1931)".

This is the standard format for inflation adjustments. I have used this format in dozens of articles and reviewed dozens of articles in this format.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Broadway quickly" - This should be changed to "The Broadway building quickly" as the current wording doesn't flow.

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"an 8-story modern annex" - WP:NUMERAL.

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable with no original research?

"On April 4, 1985, the building and the entire Hollywood Blvd Commercial & Entertainment District were recognized by the California Office of Historic Preservation with status code 1D in designations 0053-4680-0054 and 0053-4680-9999, respectively. The building is covered by the Mills Act (Contract Number: 53175873 and Case Number: CHC-2005-5690-MA)" - Whole lot is un-sourced.

I have found a source for the most important part of that content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it broad in its coverage?
Is it neutral?
Is it stable?
Is it illustrated?

I would suggest enlarging File:Broadway Hollywood Building sign.jpg.

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review result?

The article is not far off from meeting the GA-criteria, but still needs additional work which I have outlined in this review. I'm going to put it on hold and give the GA-nominator a chance to response. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Jonas Vinther, I have attempted to respond to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TonyTheTiger, the article is much better now and meets the GA-criteria. I'm going to pass it, good job. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:43, 15 October 2014 (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.