Talk:Rohm and Haas Corporate Headquarters/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Unless I'm missing something this sentence, Abandoned was part of the original plan that altered the building's facade, which was nonetheless cleaned is poorly worded, but other than that the prose is pretty good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Mostly good, but a couple issues. In the sentence, At the time the dean of architecture and planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Pietro Belluschi worked with George M. Ewing Co. to redesign George M. Ewing's original plan, "the dean of architecture and planning" sounds POVish and encyclopediac. Also, it could be POV to state the building is "considered one of the best examples of the International style"

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Almost there; very close to passing, but there are a couple very minor issues. I put the article on-hold for those issues to be addressed. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I hopefully made the sentence about the facade sound better.
• The "considered one of the best examples of the International style" statement is referenced so I don't think it violates NPOV. The reference is a news source and does not say who says it and implies the building is generally considered a great example of the style.
• I don't understand how "the dean of architecture and planning" sounds POVish, can you please explain? Thanks for the review. Medvedenko (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)