Talk:Milam Building/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mr rnddude (talk · contribs) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, I will be doing the GA review for this article, expect my full review to be up by tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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.	Refer to comments below, some things need addressing and will affect any review of 1a. No further issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Neatly laid out, section headings appropriate, words to watch being dealt with under criterion 4. Otherwise no issues here.
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.	All sources of information have been provided in an appropriate format.
	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).	I have no qualms with any of the sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyvio's detected, Earwig rates it unlikely with 16.7% confidence as well.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This is a relatively short article, it's main feature is indeed it's use of air conditioning throughout, however, in keeping with summary-style writing on Wikipedia the shortened and more focussed approach to that section is much better. I've looked at the sources used in the article and haven't noted any glaring omissions and am thus happy to pass this article on to GA.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The issue with over analysis of the air conditioning unit has been cleared up. The article is focussed on the building throughout and doesn't stray off unnecessarily, however, it goes way to deep when discussing the air conditioning unit; Most specifically this; "In designing and executing this installation, and creating an artificial building climate, at least nine competing problems had to be accommodated: Air-Conditioning system: the necessity for a system that would carry the full load, and deliver year round climate control adjustments. Calculating the "comfort zone": local user's relative tolerance to heat/cold humidity/dryness, which varied from those of persons from other climes (e.g., New Yorkers). Radiant heat and the "traveling" sun: balancing out various and variable needs, due to radiant heat gain from a moving sun. Air distribution: considered to be 70% to 80% of the task by experts. Return air: efficiently reusing already—cooled air, such as in the bathrooms. Air leakage: losing cooled air to the surrounding environment, particularly as the "tide" of moving air changes with the seasons. Air delivery: the extent to which humidification was used, a controversial issue. Refrigeration and cooling equipment: using available technology, trying to minimize power demand. Controlling the system: developing a system of manual and automatic controls, which would be run by the building engineer.[10]" The above section needs to be summarized, and avoid the pitfalls of weasel words such as "by experts" <- which ones and who says their an expert, credentials, etc?  Done Addressed above issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Problem phrases have been sorter. Some problem phrases (apologies for the random ordering); "When built, the building was a blend of state of the art technology and Gothic architecture." <- contentious claim, citation needed at the end of the sentence and also fails WP:Peacock, needs a rephrase. "[10][11][12][13][14][2][15][16][4]" <- WP:OVERLINK, these citations should be moved to specific sentences really, even if all nine of them state the same thing, in which case move some and delete the others. "The air conditioning covered the building basement, cafeteria, penthouse and over 700 offices in between throughout all 21 floors." <- advertisey, it's not a clear vio of anything but just reads like you're selling me the product. "The Milam Grill cafeteria received patrons daily who stood in long lines around the building in anticipation for the comfort of the restaurant's refrigerated air. The air conditioning was advertised as having a "health benefit."" Trivial, not needed and not really encyclopaedic content. "series of well known downtown" <- so much for well known if I don't know which ones. Even then, I don't know the buildings of San Antonio anyway. Weasel.  Done Addressed above issues.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is in a stable condition, there is a request for a GOCE editor to do a copy-edit of the article, if the GOCE editor gets to the article before I complete my GA review I will make a note of their changes and if they get to it after my review, if the article has already passed GA, then that is out of my hands and really a non-issue.
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.	The image has an appropriate CC-by 2.0 license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image has an appropriate caption and is relevant to the article.
	7. Overall assessment.	A relatively short article but well focussed with deep coverage where it is needed. The outstanding issues have been sorted and this article is good to go for GA. I thought I'd add this here; there is the obviously glaring omission of an infobox, I personally believe that this is a stylistic choice and will not impose my opinion on the article on this matter. If a broader discussion is ever called on it, then, and only then, may I render some opinion on this discussion.

I will be using the above table to complete the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Update; expect a couple days delay as I am currently busy IRL, hopefully it'll be up by the tenth. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

<no wiki> "User: 7&6=thirteen" </no wiki>, my sincerest apologies for this long delay, I have taken a look and reviewed the article. There are some issues that I have with 3b and 4. For the time being because of this I am abstaining from 1a and 3a as they will necessarily be affected by any changes to the article. Feel free to ping me if you need any help or explanations. And again, sorry for the long wait. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: Thanks for the review. We will work on those improvements suggested.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)