Talk:Texas Capitol View Corridors/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 16:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking a look at this! — Ghost River 16:40, 23 November 2021 (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

Infobox and lede

Delink "dome" and "high-rise" per MOS:OVERLINK
"The corridors significantly limit the potential for the development of new tall structures in downtown Austin." → "While supported by cultural and historical preservation organizations, the corridors have also been criticized for limiting the development of tall structures in downtown Austin."

History

pipe "City of Austin" to "Austin"
Switch the clauses so that "aiming to preserve" comes before "enacted a local ordinance"
Austin Statesman should be italicized as the name of a publication
Capitol should be capitalized all the way through
I've capitalized it everywhere that it isn't being used as an adjective ("capitol dome", "capitol views"). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"height limit (though compensating with a setback for the upper portion)." → "height limit, although it compensated with a setback for the upper portion."
Link "Texas Governor" to Governor of Texas
""...of certain construction."" → ""...of certain construction"." per MOS:LQ
Begging your pardon, but the period is actually part of the title of the bill (though that doesn't make sense grammatically!). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Preservation of View of State Capitol."" → ""Preservation of View of State Capitol"." per MOS:LQ
"thirty state-protected" → "30 state-protected" per MOS:NUMERAL
Er, I don't mean to be difficult, but, what part of that guideline do you feel requires this change? I see it say that "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amendments and additions

Commas rather than parentheses around the phrase beginning "including the redevelopment"
"eleven of the thirty" → "11 of the 30" per MOS:NUMERAL
See above. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed after "no changes were ultimately made" per WP:INTEGRITY
I haven't been able to find a journalistic source following up on the issue, unfortunately. I can add a citation to a blog that notes that "That report was met by wails of protest by preservationists statewide and summarily shelved." If that doesn't seem sufficiently reliable, then I guess we can just remove that ending and leave the reader hanging. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on development

"have frequently been the focus of conflict" → "have been a frequent focus of conflict"
"On the one hand"
"One or the other" and "The one or the other" are both well represented in published English-language prose; I get the feeling that the latter is more frequent in British usage? Is there a reason why you feel that the word needs to be added here? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corridors

"to be built in a manner that would intersect"
"thirty ... twenty-six ... twenty-one" → "30 ... 26 ... 21" per MOS:NUMERAL
See above. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Good

General comments

Images are CC or public domain and relevant
Some concern about MOS:SANDWICH with the two right-aligned images; adding the "upright" parameter to the 360 Condominiums thumbnail might help
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig turns up some mirror sites but nothing of actual concern

Putting on hold to allow nominator to address comments. Feel free to ping me with questions, and please let me know when you're finished! — Ghost River 17:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostRiver: Hey, thanks for the review! I've made all the changes as requested, excepting those with comments above. I appreciate your time! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my tardiness, Bryanrutherford0. My parents were in town for the holidays. Regarding MOS:NUMERAL, I have always been told that numbers larger than 10 should be placed in numerical form, even though the MOS says either is acceptable. Ultimately, on/on the is not a huge issue, although I believe the latter flows better, especially with the parallelism set up by "on the other hand". Although a blog is generally considered unreliable, it appears the author now works for the city council, and I'd thus consider him a reliable source. Once that is added, I'll be happy to pass. — Ghost River 18:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the citation to support the fact that no changes were made after the 2007 report. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]