![]() | Édifice Price has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 19, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the construction of the
Édifice Price was originally so criticized that it caused an ordinance prohibiting buildings exceeding 65 feet in
Old Québec? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have taken on Édifice Price for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Circeus. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written FAIL
1.1 Prose
This is the main area that needs attention. I'm guessing that this article has been translated from another wiki, and whilst the English is generally very good, it does need a further copyedit. Some phrasing is a little obscure (although the sense can be understood), and there are a few instances where the words chosen are not those that would normally be used. To give a few examples (these are not exhaustive):
...
To summarise, basically the prose needs a thorough copyedit, which would solve all the above problems and some of those listed below as well.
1.2 Manual of Style
The article complies with the MoS in its layout and formatting, and is well-wikilinked. Citations are formatted using the appropriate templates, and the article is categorised and makes good use of its infobox. Only a few points here:
2 Factual accuracy FAIL
The article is well-sourced, although it has the disadvantage that the sources are mostly in French. This is not a GA fail criteria (my French is just about good enough to verify the information!), but per WP:SOURCE#Sources in languages other than English, these really ought to be translated at some point. The only issue with factual accuracy as far as the GA review is concerned is:
3 Coverage PASS but see comment
The subject is well covered. However, there is a bit of repetition in the article (mainly relating to the official residence, which is mentioned in almost every section).
4 Neutrality PASS but see comment
The article is neutral in its tone and presentation, with no evidence of bias. I only found one very minor item here: the paragraph containing the sentence "The administration has strongly affirmed the timing with the Premier's installation to be a complete coincidence." that refers to the opening of a psychiatric clinic in the building could be taken as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour as the Premier's expense. Personally I love it - it made me laugh out loud - but I'll be interested to hear your views ;)
5 Stability PASS
There is no evidence of instability or recent edit-warring from the article history.
6 Images PASS
All three images used are appropriately captioned and bear a suitable license.
As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 6th September). All the best, EyeSerene TALK 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed Édifice Price as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Arts > Art and architecture > Architecture. For the record, Circeus contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five or more major edits in the last 50).
Well done! EyeSerene TALK 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You've done an excellent job addressing the issues I raised. I have copyedited the article per our discussion - I would be grateful if you could give it a further read-through to make sure I have not introduced any errors. I also tried to address the repetition of the Memorial and Premier's apartment; hopefully I have done this in a way that makes sense!
A couple of points:
Anyway, let me know when you've proofread and I'll be happy to pass the article. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Édifice Price. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lcn.canoe.com/infos/regional/archives/2001/05/20010501-200640.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lcn.canoe.com/infos/national/archives/2006/03/20060320-090933.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Édifice Price has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
July 19, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the construction of the
Édifice Price was originally so criticized that it caused an ordinance prohibiting buildings exceeding 65 feet in
Old Québec? |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have taken on Édifice Price for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Circeus. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 18:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:
1 Well written FAIL
1.1 Prose
This is the main area that needs attention. I'm guessing that this article has been translated from another wiki, and whilst the English is generally very good, it does need a further copyedit. Some phrasing is a little obscure (although the sense can be understood), and there are a few instances where the words chosen are not those that would normally be used. To give a few examples (these are not exhaustive):
...
To summarise, basically the prose needs a thorough copyedit, which would solve all the above problems and some of those listed below as well.
1.2 Manual of Style
The article complies with the MoS in its layout and formatting, and is well-wikilinked. Citations are formatted using the appropriate templates, and the article is categorised and makes good use of its infobox. Only a few points here:
2 Factual accuracy FAIL
The article is well-sourced, although it has the disadvantage that the sources are mostly in French. This is not a GA fail criteria (my French is just about good enough to verify the information!), but per WP:SOURCE#Sources in languages other than English, these really ought to be translated at some point. The only issue with factual accuracy as far as the GA review is concerned is:
3 Coverage PASS but see comment
The subject is well covered. However, there is a bit of repetition in the article (mainly relating to the official residence, which is mentioned in almost every section).
4 Neutrality PASS but see comment
The article is neutral in its tone and presentation, with no evidence of bias. I only found one very minor item here: the paragraph containing the sentence "The administration has strongly affirmed the timing with the Premier's installation to be a complete coincidence." that refers to the opening of a psychiatric clinic in the building could be taken as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour as the Premier's expense. Personally I love it - it made me laugh out loud - but I'll be interested to hear your views ;)
5 Stability PASS
There is no evidence of instability or recent edit-warring from the article history.
6 Images PASS
All three images used are appropriately captioned and bear a suitable license.
As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 6th September). All the best, EyeSerene TALK 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed Édifice Price as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Arts > Art and architecture > Architecture. For the record, Circeus contributed significantly to this GA pass (with five or more major edits in the last 50).
Well done! EyeSerene TALK 15:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You've done an excellent job addressing the issues I raised. I have copyedited the article per our discussion - I would be grateful if you could give it a further read-through to make sure I have not introduced any errors. I also tried to address the repetition of the Memorial and Premier's apartment; hopefully I have done this in a way that makes sense!
A couple of points:
Anyway, let me know when you've proofread and I'll be happy to pass the article. Regards, EyeSerene TALK 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Édifice Price. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lcn.canoe.com/infos/regional/archives/2001/05/20010501-200640.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://lcn.canoe.com/infos/national/archives/2006/03/20060320-090933.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)