Talk:Elizabeth Plankinton House/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 04:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commencing review

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Hello, Doug. I'll be reviewing all the Plankinton articles within the current GAN Backlog Drive and will use the checklist above to register progress. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I have a few problems here which need to be resolved before I can do a full review:

First, a cn was added only this morning by another editor so that must be addressed.

@No Great Shaker: Done --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the Zimmermann source which is cited several times is a dead link so I need verification by other means.

Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Replaced with 1979 HUD Environmental Impact Statement.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Third, in the Construction section, the clause unfortunately, Elizabeth's husband-to-be married another woman in September 1887 needs attention because "unfortunately" is a weasel word and the clause is out of context there.

Working --Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Removed unfortunate sentence. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These points are confirmed in the criteria above, but I'm remaining neutral on the majority of criteria for now. If these difficulties can be resolved, I'll be happy to continue the review which goes on hold for the time being.

No rush, by the way. If it takes more than seven days to sort out, no problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: Issues have been addressed. Can you take another look. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

The article is fine now, Doug. I just took out the EL section because it was empty.

I do like the photos in this one – very atmospheric and nostalgic. It's difficult to say from old photos if it really was an "ugly behemoth" but perhaps it was out of style with its surroundings. I noticed the comment "bad Victorian taste" and that is something we often see and think over here. Victorian buildings tend to deserve the word "piles" and are not so much bad taste as tasteless. Georgian architecture, on the other hand, is almost unfailingly high quality.

Anyway, that's three Plankintons down and one to go. Well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]