Talk:Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle) has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 24, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government / Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 February 2016, and was viewed approximately 3,290 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Federal Reserve Bank Building (pictured) in downtown Seattle, Washington, is one of the earliest surviving works of architecture firm NBBJ?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle).

Wikipedia

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Landmark Nomination Appendix 3

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Federal Reserve Bank Building (Seattle)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eteethan (talk · contribs) 20:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Grammar and spelling fine.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	In compliance.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Plenty of references, and no unreferenced facts.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All sources checked, looks fine.	Pass
(c) (original research)	The article is based on reliable sources.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Checked with copyvio detector and none found.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	This article starts off broad and has a good summary of the topic...	Pass
(b) (focused)	...and then it narrows down to talk about very detailed information about the subject.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
There's not many different viewpoints in this article, but it looks like there is no bias in this article.	Undetermined

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Only recent edits are by one user.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are free.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Images are fine.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Result: Promoted.

Discussion

Please add any related discussion here.

I have upload a non-free image (File:Seattle Federal Reserve Building development rendering.jpg) of the proposed skyscraper development. Please reconsider your image review to include the new non-free image. Sounder Bruce 04:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just checked it and it should be fine. I will try to get this review done today. Eteethan(talk) 12:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Streamline Moderne?

Who determined it was Streamline Moderne? It doesn't look anything like Streamline Moderne. 209.137.134.50 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC) 2/16/2016[reply]

@209.137.134.50: My mistake. I meant to link to Moderne architecture (which currently redirects to Streamline Moderne), which is referenced by the GSA and HistoryLink, but it does not have an article anymore. I've changed all references to the style to "Modernist". Sounder Bruce 19:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]