Talk:Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower/GA1

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2022 (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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I will be away from the Internet from now until this Saturday and will not be able to complete the review until then. Apologies for the delay, but I expect we'll be able to wrap it up quickly next weekend! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this review today. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2022 (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.	As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made minor prose tweaks myself to save us both time - please let me know if there are any changes you object to.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Well-referenced, no uncited paragraphs or sections. Some passages of several sentences from same source with just one citation - no issues.
	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).	Reliability of some historic newspaper sources (The Chat, Pencil Points) harder to assess, but no issues that I can dig up. More modern Brownstoner and Bklynr are also likely fine from what I can tell. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	None found - pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comprehensive, nothing else I can find - pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass after modifications. The article had an excessive amount of intricate detail on some of the building's structures and rooms. I understand that it's a notable building, but this still needs to be an encyclopedic summmary for the general reader, not an architectural digest.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues found, pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No stability issues, no unresolved disputes on talk - pass.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	File:One hanson place williamsburg savings building.jpg can be removed - low quality and doesn't add too much to the article. File:Williamsburgh Savings Bank interior2.jpg can be removed. File:Brooklyn (38693094731).jpg could be moved up to replace the first body image in 'Site' that I mention above. Addressed - pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for the comments. I see your point about the excessive detail, but I think you may have removed too much detail - for example, the ladies' lounge and the basement lobby weren't really discussed at all after these changes. I have also changed the images that you mentioned. Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and restore some of the content about those two areas - just make sure to keep it a summary. Thanks for fixing the images. Assuming good faith that your restorations will not be excessive, this article meets the GA standard and passes! Congratulations to you and anyone else who worked on this article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2022 (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.