Talk:EY Tower/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 21:37, 25 August 2015 (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, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Why is the civil engineer wikilinked, and the engineer not? No website for the engineer? I am unsure as to the reason for the one article of the "See Also" section. Simply because it is another Oxford Property? If so, maybe it can stand to be expanded. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): There seems to be an information gap in between the years 1928-98. That gap is too wide, surely there must have been some updates on the building sometime during those years. "...and will be integrated into the PATH as part of Oxford’s Richmond-Adelaide Centre." What is the PATH? The construction section is also thin. Maybe you could add some information about the contractor selection process, or more details surrounding the actual contraction along the lines of the one detail given? 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:
· · ·

Too begin soon... QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on this article, it was a pleasure to review, and also gain some more insight on the cityscape of one of the finest, Toronto. After remedying the above, I should be passing the article after I review the references. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

QatarStarsLeague has not edited on Wikipedia since September 1, almost four full weeks. I was considering getting in touch with nominator CookieMonster755, even though none of the issues brought up had yet been addressed, to see whether a new reviewer was desired, when I saw that CookieMonster755's talk page stated that the user had retired. Under the circumstances, I see no chance of the review being concluded successfully, so I am closing it. I hope CookieMonster755 decides to return; if so, the article can be renominated, but the issues raised above should be addressed first. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]