Talk:Peck Building/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Pencilsforall (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: WikiFouf (talk · contribs) 16:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pencilsforall (talk · contribs) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I cool article. I'll add a table with comments and notes when I finish the review. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsforall thanks so much!:) WikiFouf (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of sources:

Source [3] Can't access to assess
Source [4] in French

It appears to be largely English, still, it checks out.

Source [6] Can't access to assess
Source [7] Can't access to assess

Can be accessed through the Wayback Machine.

Source [11] in French

Checks out, the employee growth is telling.

Source [13] Confirmed information

Hi again- I'm asking for a second opinion primarily because I wasn't able to do a spot check of the sources that were in French. Hopefully the second opinion can read the French sources! Pencilsforall (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsforall All good, thanks for your work! Some of these sources are accessible through the Wikipedia Library, by the way, it's a great resource if you haven't signed up:) WikiFouf (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my second opinion comments above. I've also clipped sources 3 and 6 for you to confirm, @WikiFouf. Good luck with the review! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser Didn't know you could do that (the clippings), thanks a lot! WikiFouf (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! They're rather handy.

Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsforall, did you mean to put this up for a second opinion? You didn't actually list it. You have to change "status" from "onreview" to "2ndopinion". -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: a little late, but chiming in nevertheless! Apologies, I changed the review status; looking back, it seems "Answering a second opinion" only applies to the original reviewer. On that front, @Pencilsforall: just checking in. If they don't reply soon, do you believe it's time for "Step 4a"? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser, that was my mistake actually, I didn't realize that the source check above was yours, since it wasn't signed. So what you did was correct, but I'm not sure what @Pencilsforall is expected to make of this source check, since you only appear to have confirmed two of the sources? -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Ah, I clipped or linked the sources they couldn't access. Looking at them now, they do check out, or in the case of multiple citations, confirm part of the sentence. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi All. Sorry for being slow. I'll take a look and finish up the review soon.Pencilsforall (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsforall: thanks for the reply above. It's been a little while; what's the status on this review? Would you still have time to complete it? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiFouf, if you don't get a response soon, I think it's best if this review is closed as unsuccessful. You can then immediately renominate it. It will be eligible for next month's backlog drive, so I'm confident you'll get a review soon if you relist. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- Thanks @Averageuntitleduser for the help with the source checks with the confirmation of the French sources and clippings of the others. Overall, this is looking good and there are only a few minor edits that are needed before it can be passed. Here's my full review. Pencilsforall (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pencilsforall : Thanks for the notes and glad you enjoy the article:)

"Supposedly" : This is because this date comes from the initial building contract, as described in source #1. As far as I know, there is no confirmation that the building was completed on schedule, but nothing to suggest it wasn't either. I added a note to clarify, hope that works.
"Driven out" : Good point, I switched it to "deserted", does that work?
Source spot-check: The exchange for a bonus is described in source #1 : "Dans ce contexte, John W. Peck, président de la manufacture de chemises John W. Peck & Co., propose en 1902 au conseil de la ville de Saint-Louis de s’y installer en échange d’un boni de 30 000 $." [Google-translated: "In this context, John W. Peck, president of the shirt manufacturing company John W. Peck & Co., proposed in 1902 to the Saint-Louis city council to settle there in exchange for a bonus of $30,000."]

WikiFouf (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Pencilsforall (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	The article is well written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	A few comments on style "Supposedly completed in the spring of 1904" Is there a reason to doubt this claim? If so, explain the source of the doubt, if not, remove the "supposedly" term. "..the textile industry was rapidly driven out of Montreal." driven out seem to assume a willful effort to remove the industry, rather than a consequence of globalization.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Looks good.
	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).	Spot check of sources: Source [3] Confirms the 1910 date, but can't confirm the exchange for a bonus comment in this source or source 2. Source [4] Thanks to for the second option. Source shows the shirt manufacturing business was in the Peck Building. Source [6] Looks good. Source [7] Looks good. Accessed through Wayback Machine. Source [11] Source in French; Confirmed by second opinion. Checks out, the employee growth is telling. Source [13] Confirmed information
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No concerns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article nicely covers the history and current uses of the building.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No concerns.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Minor edits on tone and wording; See above.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No concerns.
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.	No concerns.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Nice pictures!
	7. Overall assessment.	Nice article. Fun to see the history and current use of the building. Small things that can be easily addressed.

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.