Talk:Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: G. Moore (talk · contribs) 12:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This article has been in the queue for a while, so I guess that I can start the review. I would look for others to help in this review, also. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 12:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checked text for Copyvio and did not find any.-- Talk to G Moore 12:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzed for dead links. 51 links analyzed. 44 links rescued. 10 links archived. No dead links. -- Talk to G Moore 12:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@G. Moore: Just in case you have forgotten about this. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Epicgenius: too. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aircorn: I am not sure what more should be done to the article to improve it. It has bread and focus. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 21:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

It enhance the article to have an Infobox hospital as either part of the Infobox NRHP or a separate Infobox hospital. There are sufficient sourcing to add information about the hospital. -- Talk to G Moore 23:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

G. Moore, Epicgenius, where does this review stand? As far as I can tell, nothing has been posted here since October 23, and Epicgenius has never posted here at all nor edited the article at all since the review was started. It is important that progress is made here soon; both of you appear to be actively editing on Wikipedia. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

@Epicgenius and BlueMoonset: Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images all good, and no copyvio
Lead an appropriate length and good coverage. Perhaps some rearranging to get the bold names in the first paragraph but should be fine at GA
I don't think 1857 and 1883 need to be/should be in quotation marks; it appears they are being discussed as referring to the years, not quoting inscriptions.
- I have removed these. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Design section otherwise all good
Does the background section about Little Germany not belong right at the top? This also contextualizes the German-born architect, so it might be helpful
- I think it does. I've swapped the history and design sections. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little confused at covering the library and clinic in one article; are they the same historic monument and is it still not suitable to have two articles as separate parts of that monument?
- Yes, they are part of the same monument. Prior to expanding this page, I was considering whether to split it as well, but the pair of buildings was apparently very closely related. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Content of the History section all good
Reception section good

Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Thanks for the feedback. I've addressed these comments. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice short-ish article, guess I'm still feeding your WikiCup list this year. Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2021 (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.