Jump to content

Talk:History of Cincinnati Union Terminal/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 17:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Ɱ, I will start the review shortly. I do that by reading through of the article first, and identifying any comments or questions by section of the article, and after that I use the GA table template to evaluate the GA criteria.

Would you mind if I went ahead and made any minor edits or link changes — that you could review to ensure agreement? Or, would you prefer me to list all of those? I am happy to go with whatever works the best for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and great! I am at home for the foreseeable future, so will be here to address comments plenty. I can be kind-of a stickler about minor changes (the devil's in the details!) so would prefer listing unless something you're sure will be fine... Thanks, ɱ (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Ɱ, I will go ahead and list everything for right now and if you see a pattern of things I could take care of (links, punctuation, other types of minor edits), let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General comment

[edit]

The article is well-researched and well-written. I am glad you are a stickler - and believe that the devil's in the details - it means to me that you probably won't mind that I am that way, too, and that you will push back on suggestions that you don't find helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intro / lede

[edit]
Done
  • I like that you started out with a bit of background about the terminal in the first paragraph.
  • Since Cincinnati, Ohio redirects to Cincinnati, I suggest changing the first instance to "Cincinnati, Ohio" (with or without a link to Ohio) and remove the link to Cincinnati in the second paragraph.
Done. ɱ (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There already is one in the first paragraph? ɱ (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "The building's largest tenants are the Cincinnati Museum Center, a group of three museums, a library, and a theater, as well as the Holocaust & Humanity Center." mean that "The building's largest tenants are the Holocaust & Humanity Center and the Cincinnati Museum Center, which houses three museums, a library, and a theater."? I see why you put the museum center first, but perhaps it could be edited so that it does not look like a running list.
It's a weird situation that's very awkward to phrase. CMC is one entity formed from initially a few entities, with the children's museum added in 8 years later. The HHC is sometimes reported as part of CMC, but it's clear enough it's still a separate organization. It's been extra confusing as many people and newspapers have been referring to the entire building as the Cincinnati Museum Center... The organization CMC takes up much more space and has much more influence, meaning it should be listed first here. I still want to explain somewhere in the lede that CMC is XYZ, but you're right that it's unclear as it reads now. I am alright with confused readers clicking on the CMC link to find clarification, unless you can find a better way to reword? ɱ (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding "which houses" or something like that after CMC? And, perhaps make the Holocaust Center it's own sentence.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused where you would place "which houses"? Do you want to just reword the full sentence here? ɱ (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here's my stab. I see it doesn't work to make it two sentences.
"The building's largest tenants are the Cincinnati Museum Center, which houses a group of three museums, a library, and a theater—as well as the Holocaust & Humanity Center."–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am rereading the intro and that sentence is clearer than I thought.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a bit more information about the history of the terminal. Perhaps making the second paragraph about the construction and adding information about the Art Deco details, or additional information about the construction and opening of the terminal from the "Background", "Design considerations and Art Deco origins" and "Construction" sections that seem salient to you. And, perhaps a third paragraph that provides more key timeline details, perhaps being a USO and transportation center during WWII (since that seems to be its peak period as a railroad terminal}, and a couple of other sentences that you find to be key milestones or points since its opening.
Done, let me know what you think. ɱ (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Great job. The intro is really great now. It's a really good summary of the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in the first and second sentences of 'Operation and decline'. Kinda separated, but trying to stay chronological and narrative is difficult... ɱ (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a great job managing all the detail with all the terminal / museum's changes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]
Items that are done
  • Just wondering, is the "Further" statement needed / helpful since "Lincoln Park was located in the current parking lot and entrance drive of Cincinnati Union Terminal, directly east of the structure." (i.e., just a part of the entire terminal site). And, Lincoln Park is mentioned in the third paragraph?
Are you referring to the {{for}} template I have there? So the thing is that the article on Lincoln Park talks about the site and surrounding spaces, and goes into further detail on the many uses for the land before it became a park even. For the purposes of the History of CUT article, I'm only mentioning land uses just before construction started. The park space, the most visible part of the terminal complex besides the station building, is important in its park use, renovation into lawns, and 1980s paving over into its current use as a parking lot. The Lincoln Park Grounds, a baseball field that was considered part of the park, is now the site of the terminal's plaza and a portion of the building. ɱ (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand "which operated through sleepers with other railroads" in "The Louisville and Nashville Railroad, which operated through sleepers with other railroads, was forced to split its operations between two stations.[2]" Does it mean other types of railroad service? It offered sleeper service to other railroads?
Clarified, this was confusing. ɱ (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that something is needed after "cramped" in "Additionally, the stations were cramped, not large enough to support the city's passenger traffic." - perhaps "because they were". Or, maybe remove "were cramped,".
Added. ɱ (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph: Since you already used his full name should "led by George Dent Crabbs" be shortened to "led by Crabbs"?
Done. ɱ (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "the" needed in "near the Mill Creek."?
Yeah, this is one body of water that gets that article, like the Hudson River or the Ohio River. ɱ (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, good detective work. Seems the park used to stretch further though, if that first source is to be believed. It's kinda a sad replacement for such a wonderful large community space. ɱ (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thanks, I see this is  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph. Regarding: "The terminal company planned for the park to become the terminal's lush entrance drive, originally a sunken garden with its existing lake and island.[9][10] The Lincoln Park Grounds or Union Grounds was an adjacent baseball field, removed for installation of the terminal and plaza.[11]" Should originally be moved up to "The terminal company originally planned" since that plan seems to have been squashed?
No, so Lincoln Park was a "sunken garden with its existing lake and island". The terminal company succeeded in transforming it into "the terminal's lush entrance drive". ɱ (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. To be a bit clearer (more than a plan, state of park before transformation), what do you think about "The terminal company transformed the park, which had a sunken garden, lake and island, into the terminal's lush entrance drive.[9][10]" ? –CaroleHenson (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ɱ (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Design considerations and Art Deco origins

[edit]
Done
  • I am confused by "The shape of the rotunda and concourse were the same as the finished product, though the design more closely resembled their Buffalo Central Terminal." Same with sentences about the east facade and the other details. Does it mean the same as designed? It may just mean that there needs to be a leading statement that explains what "same" means. Or switch the order, the final product... was the same / similar to the original design.
No, so, the original Gothic-type design had a large half-dome rotunda, and a long barrel-vaulted train concourse, the same shapes the final Art Deco product does: a quarter-sphere and this shape. Yet the pre-1931 detailwork and aesthetic was like Buffalo's station (the details are eerily similar), not like the present detailwork and aesthetic. The exterior facade is very similar between pre- and post-1931, but the 1931 changes modernized the aesthetics and detailwork to become more Art Deco - more minimalist, fewer arches, less intricate and stately. ɱ (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I wasn't clear enough. What does "same as the finished product" mean, since the finished product is the end-state?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just meant that the original shapes were kept even as the design transformed. ɱ (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded some, let me know if that's clearer? ɱ (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph of Background states that Lincoln Park was lost. And, there is a part of a sentence here that states "the relandscaping of Lincoln Park". I am guessing it's a combination of the two (e.g., Lincoln Park no longer functioned as a city park, but was landscaped to provide greenery / landscaped details), is that right?
How do you think I should clean this up? Yes many sources indicate Lincoln Park was demolished, but yet it appears on maps in the 1930s and a few onward, representing the grassy green space and flowers in place of the versatile and well-utilized original park. Certainly by the time it was nearly-entirely paved over, nobody considers it a park any longer. ɱ (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that changing the sentence above in the Background section (first of the two remaining items) is all that is needed. Nothing is needed here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok done. ɱ (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph. Were the architectural changes primarily due to "Paul Philippe Cret"?
This is something that never will have a clear answer likely. Most careful histories don't present it as certain fact, but as very well likely due to his many similar designs and his hiring around the time changes were made. ɱ (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cool. Thanks.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Paul Philippe Cret please.
  • Should "His submission of a plan for the Chrysler Exhibition Building, in the 1933 Century of Progress world's fair, has numerous similarities to the terminal plan and design.[13]" state "final terminal plan and design"?
Done. ɱ (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought... to reduce "cost savings" in the two first sentences of paragraph three. What do you think of a change from "The Art Deco design was approved with its proposed cost savings in mind. The building's construction coincided with the Great Depression, making cost savings a strong reason to change." to something like, "Since construction coincided with the Great Depression, design changes incorporating cost-saving Art Deco elements was approved." You are a good writer and may come up with something better. (A general comment for all my suggestions.)
Thanks, let me know what you think. ɱ (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. ɱ (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Reiss is this? Is it one of the artists in Reiss (name)?
Huh, guess I didn't introduce him yet. Winold Reiss, creator of the Winold Reiss industrial murals among the main two giant mosaics in the Rotunda. Pretty cool stuff. Will add about him here. ɱ (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! Very cool images in the industrial murals article!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His weird short last name, only mentioned once prior, just seems like it could be forgotten or confused for something else. Just a preference here. ɱ (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the main important point of the section is that the original conservative style evolved, the ways it did, and why, into this new, revolutionary, modern art masterpiece. ɱ (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there you go then. Cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two sentences seem awkward: "Reiss, who may have been introduced to the project by Paul Philippe Cret, used his source material more faithfully. That may have been significant in Reiss's selection for the final works." I don't know what "used his source material more faithfully" means. What source materials? More faithfully than Pierre Bourdelle?
I'm not sure how to state this, as far as I know, "source material" is the best/only way within the art world to refer to the subject under study when creating artwork. So Reiss looked at workers in factories, and duplicated what he saw less stylistically perhaps than Bourdelle would/did. Here is an example of Bourdelle's work in the terminal, versus Reiss's work. ɱ (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like (you are a better writer so I am sure you will do better than my attempt): "Reiss, who may have been introduced to the project by Paul Philippe Cret, was selected for the final works. This may be because Reiss was more faithful to his representation of subjects of his works, while Reiss was more stylistic."? If you don't like taking that course, we can drop it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a better way around this... ɱ (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

[edit]
Done
  • What do you think of moving "The terminal company purchased a hill nearby, known locally as Bald Knob, for the landfill." To just before "Material at Bald Knob"... so that the elevation discussion has continuity... and there's not a break in the Bald Knob sentences?
Done. ɱ (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering, would it make sense to integrate the last paragraph of Background with the second half of the third paragraph of the Construction section?
Done. ɱ (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation and decline

[edit]
Break - Happy Union Terminal Day - break over

Adding section for now. Taking a break.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will work through. Happy Union Terminal day by the way, the building (officially) opened 87 years ago today! ɱ (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How fun! Happy Union Terminal day!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • Second paragraph - since this is the first time that the railroad abbreviations are used, would it be good to provide links. Or, put the abbreviations in parentheses where first used? (I think in terms of a fifth grader (ESL reader, etc.) reading Wikipedia articles and wonder how many will be familiar with C&O.) B&O was used in the Construction section.
Gotcha. I'll just link them because otherwise the acronyms would clutter that first mention sentence, and would have to abbreviate all even if not used later. ɱ (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph - Do you have a source for "While it had a brief revival in the 1940s, because of World War II, it declined in use through the 1950s into the 1960s, as passengers had taken to affordable individual automobiles."
Essentially removed, same ideas cited elsewhere. ɱ (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "it declined in use through the 1950s into the 1960s, as passengers had taken to affordable individual automobiles." follow the WWII content in the next paragraph?
Fixed. ɱ (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. ɱ (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, all look great and are  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abandonment and partial demolition

[edit]
Done
Note to refresh your page - adding to the lede allowed for some reworking here, some of the above may not apply, but other comments could potentially be added. ɱ (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at this section in this combination of diffs and don't have any additions to my comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding " The society noted the emergency as Southern Railway planned to demolish the terminal," -- since there hasn't been a discussion of an emergency yet, should "the" be replace by "an eminent emergency".. or "an emergency"?
I reworded some of this - the sale to the Southern hadn't happened yet, but there was talk of demolishing the entire terminal. The original source just says the owner planned to demolish it, so that's what I'll stick with. I mentioned its uncertain future, will clarify a little further... ɱ (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it would be less awkward to word "Of the replacement, it was said "you can put the new station in the men's room of the old station" (the current Amtrak waiting room)." to "The new Amtrak waiting room would fit 'in the men's room of the old station'."–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this, the quotes were something included in the NYT source and others as something evidently said about it word-for-word. ɱ (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping mall

[edit]
Done
Fixed. ɱ (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Museum operation and rail service

[edit]
Done

Renovation and reopening

[edit]
Done
  • Do you have a source for "Amtrak services moved to a temporary annex on Kenner Street, just north of Union Terminal."?
 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "repolished brass fixtures" seems to be hanging out by itself... "The fountain was reinstalled with the same specifications, and a new concrete and terrazzo basin, repolished brass fixtures." Maybe an "and" or "with"?
Fixed, thanks. ɱ (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ɱ (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, done!

References

[edit]
Done

GA criteria

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Yes, the article is well-written, clear and concise. There are some suggestions, but generally that's all they are.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes, the article complies with the MOS guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See the comments section for one bare url. I am not sure that page numbers are needed for GA, but it makes it hard to verify the information without them. See the comments section for that, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC) — This is now  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2b. 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). See the comments section for use of what appears to be a personal site, but if you used the newspaper article on the cited page, that could be used for the citation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC) — This is now  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. There is no evidence of original research.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No evidence of copyright violations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Yes, it covers the main aspects of the topic.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes, it is very focused and not too much detail.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Yes, the article is neutral.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Yes, the article is stable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Yes, all images have the proper copyright status.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes, all images are relevant to the topic.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment.

Comments

[edit]
  • First of all, thanks for hanging in there with me. I hope it is not disheartening to get so many comments for a well-written, researched, and executed article. You did a great job. I just dig into the details and offer suggestions. My hope is that we both feel the article is better for the suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course. Bear with me as I make the changes. See my note for the abandonment section as well. ɱ (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References
    • The first source Cincinnati Union Terminal: The Design and Construction of an Art Deco Masterpiece is 176 pages. Do you have page numbers for the pages that were used?
Done. ɱ (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same with the fourth source Cincinnati Art Deco.
For these and the below sources, I prefer to keep it more minimal. Just like a webpage, CTRL-F works to search the page, and especially Google Books, Hathitrust, Jstor, etc. have search tools to allow you to find what you're looking for faster than scanning over a whole page. ɱ (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same with the fifth and any other sources for books (google books, archive.org books, etc.) or multiple-page sources (pdfs, journals, etc.) where there are no page numbers.
See above. ɱ (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead, and I'll take a look at your changes. I am juggling a few other projects and chores today... ɱ (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the changes I made.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ɱ, I realize that there were a lot of comments and I appreciate your additions to the into and tweaks to some of the sentences. I hope that it is clear that it's just because there was a lot of detail about complex sets of circumstances. You've done a very good job with this article and you are one of the best writers here at Wikipedia. I hope that you are finding that a fresh set of eyes with suggestions for minor tweaks can help make the article better.

Except for the one missing citation, the one site that appears to be a personal site (but has a newspaper article), and the shape of the rotunda issue, I don't see anything else remaining that should be fixed to pass the article. I think it should be really easy to state that "same as" means the original design.

I didn't find anything about specific page numbers being needed to pass a good article (although I still think it would be nice to add them where they are missing for publications).

Of course, feel free to make modifications based on my other comments, if you find them helpful.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, cool. Thanks for the complement. Allow me time to look through some books and finish up your requests, and then we should be good to go. ɱ (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think every comment is addressed now? ɱ (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I will take a look.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Ɱ, the article has passed. Thanks for all your work on this great and interesting article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Your help has been wonderful. ɱ (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was my pleasure! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Cincinnati_Union_Terminal/GA1&oldid=967077110"