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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bruxton ( talk · contribs) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Epicgenius, I am happy to review this article which I first encountered as a promotor for DYK. I hope to complete the article in 7-10 days. Bruxton ( talk) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Lead section
- Lead paragraph states that this was a "spec home" Speculatively. But I do not see that information cited in the article.
Bruxton (
talk)
00:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Done It is cited in the body now.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Body
Site
First cursory copyright check: Earwig only alerts to a long quote.- Citation 5 checks out
- Citation 13 checks out
- Consider changing similarly to "also" and reordering to: "In 1977 the house at 1008 Fifth Avenue was also demolished"
- Done I changed "similarly" to "also" but retained the word order for consistency with the rest of the sentence.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Architecture
- Citation 17 checks out
Facade
- Citation 15 checks out
- Citation 20 checks out
Bruxton (
talk)
13:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
82nd Street Fifth avenue and Features
- citations check out
Original design modifications and history
- Citation 21 checks out
- Thinking out loud: I am wondering about the order of sections. I wonder if the History section shouldn't come before the architecture section. The ownership sections could fall under the heading "Ownership". But I am not convinced.
- The ownership info is closely tied to the history, since for most of its history the house was a single-family house. I think it makes more sense to describe the building first before going into its history, since people might be interested in the physical description of the house itself, and since the architecture did not change much throughout the building's existence.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Ownership
Duke ownership
- This is interesting and detailed.
- Consider an inflation template to demonstrate just how rich Benjamin Duke was: he was worth US$60 million (equivalent to $2,197,440,000 in 2023)
- Done. Epicgenius ( talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Possible missing info? In the lead we learn that Benjamin Duke bought the house in 1901, but in this section we say: Benjamin and his wife Sarah Duke are recorded as having owned the house during the early 1900s.
Bruxton (
talk)
15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done Benjamin bought the house in June 1901 and owned it with his wife for a few years.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Prose
- Consider using synonyms in place of the word "contain"
- The house contains three bays of openings on the west. Perhaps "has"
- which contains a cast iron railing along the sidewalk. Perhaps: "and there is" a cast iron railing along the sidewalk
- The modern-day house contains six metal finials, Consider: using "features"
- Similar throughout the article consider using other words like Featured, included, has, was comprised of, incorporated, there were, there was, consists of. Also contained can also be removed in some instances.
- Done I've fixed these, but I didn't go with "comprised of" because "composed of" or "comprises" usually suits the situation well. The essay
User:Giraffedata/comprised of explains the reasons for this quite well.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Similar throughout the article consider using other words like Featured, included, has, was comprised of, incorporated, there were, there was, consists of. Also contained can also be removed in some instances.
- Hello
Epicgenius We are close. I will wait for you to come to the nomination before making a final check.
Bruxton (
talk)
00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review @ Bruxton. I will address these tomorrow. (By the way, you're the third GA reviewer in the past three days to note my overuse of "contained". That word tends to be a staple of my articles for some reason.) – Epicgenius ( talk) 00:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again @ Bruxton. I've addressed all of these issues now. Epicgenius ( talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
| 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. | Yes |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
| 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. | Yes |
|
|
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). | Yes |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
| 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. | Yes |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes |
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
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.
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bruxton ( talk · contribs) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Epicgenius, I am happy to review this article which I first encountered as a promotor for DYK. I hope to complete the article in 7-10 days. Bruxton ( talk) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Lead section
- Lead paragraph states that this was a "spec home" Speculatively. But I do not see that information cited in the article.
Bruxton (
talk)
00:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done It is cited in the body now.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Body
Site
- First cursory copyright check: Earwig only alerts to a long quote.
- Citation 5 checks out
- Citation 13 checks out
- Consider changing similarly to "also" and reordering to: "In 1977 the house at 1008 Fifth Avenue was also demolished"
- Done I changed "similarly" to "also" but retained the word order for consistency with the rest of the sentence.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Architecture
- Citation 17 checks out
Facade
- Citation 15 checks out
- Citation 20 checks out
Bruxton (
talk)
13:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
82nd Street Fifth avenue and Features
- citations check out
Original design modifications and history
- Citation 21 checks out
- Thinking out loud: I am wondering about the order of sections. I wonder if the History section shouldn't come before the architecture section. The ownership sections could fall under the heading "Ownership". But I am not convinced.
- The ownership info is closely tied to the history, since for most of its history the house was a single-family house. I think it makes more sense to describe the building first before going into its history, since people might be interested in the physical description of the house itself, and since the architecture did not change much throughout the building's existence.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Ownership
Duke ownership
- This is interesting and detailed.
- Consider an inflation template to demonstrate just how rich Benjamin Duke was: he was worth US$60 million (equivalent to $2,197,440,000 in 2023)
- Done. Epicgenius ( talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Possible missing info? In the lead we learn that Benjamin Duke bought the house in 1901, but in this section we say: Benjamin and his wife Sarah Duke are recorded as having owned the house during the early 1900s.
Bruxton (
talk)
15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done Benjamin bought the house in June 1901 and owned it with his wife for a few years.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Prose
- Consider using synonyms in place of the word "contain"
- The house contains three bays of openings on the west. Perhaps "has"
- which contains a cast iron railing along the sidewalk. Perhaps: "and there is" a cast iron railing along the sidewalk
- The modern-day house contains six metal finials, Consider: using "features"
- Similar throughout the article consider using other words like Featured, included, has, was comprised of, incorporated, there were, there was, consists of. Also contained can also be removed in some instances.
- Done I've fixed these, but I didn't go with "comprised of" because "composed of" or "comprises" usually suits the situation well. The essay
User:Giraffedata/comprised of explains the reasons for this quite well.
Epicgenius (
talk)
23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Similar throughout the article consider using other words like Featured, included, has, was comprised of, incorporated, there were, there was, consists of. Also contained can also be removed in some instances.
- Hello
Epicgenius We are close. I will wait for you to come to the nomination before making a final check.
Bruxton (
talk)
00:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review @ Bruxton. I will address these tomorrow. (By the way, you're the third GA reviewer in the past three days to note my overuse of "contained". That word tends to be a staple of my articles for some reason.) – Epicgenius ( talk) 00:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks again @ Bruxton. I've addressed all of these issues now. Epicgenius ( talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
| 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. | Yes |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
| 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. | Yes |
|
|
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). | Yes |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
| 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. | Yes |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
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.